2019 Great Lakes Commission Annual Meeting...2019/10/04 · Darren Nichols, Executive Director 9:45 a.m. Break Pause Grande Place, Hilton Québec 2019 GREAT LAKES COMMISSION ANNUAL

2019 Great Lakes Commission Annual Meeting

OC TOBER 9-11 , 2019 • QUÉBECRéunion Annuelle de la Commission des Grands Lacs 2019

#GLCQC19@GLCommission facebook.com/greatlakescommission

1300 Victors Way, Suite 1350Ann Arbor, MI 48108-5203

734-971-9135 • www.glc.org

p. 3 AGENDA

p. 9 Minutes

p. 30 Action Items

p. 107 Strategic PlanProgress Reports

p.153 Reference

HILTON QUÉBEC • 1100 BOULEVARD RENÉ‐LÉVESQUE EAST • QUÉBEC, QC • G1R 4P3 • 1 418‐647‐2411

FINAL DRAFT AGENDA – 10/3/2019 – ORDRE DU JOUR PROVISOIRE

Wednesday, October 9 Mercredi, le 9 octobre

All times EST / Heure de l’Est

Activities at the National Assembly (GLC Board & Staff) Activités à l’Assemblée nationale (conseil d’administration et employés de la CGL)

10:00 a.m. Motion: 20th Anniversary of Québec’s Participation in the Great Lakes Commission

Motion: 20e anniversaire de la participation du Québec à la Commission des Grands Lacs

Quebec National Assembly GLC Board of Directors

11:00 a.m. Visit to the Quebec National Assembly

Visite de l’Assemblée nationale

Tour: Great Lakes Commission Board Remarks: Invited dignitaries

12:00 p.m. Lunch with Québec Legislative Assembly Representatives

Déjeuner avec des élus de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec

Salon de la présidence

Hosts : Gilles Bélanger, Carlos Leitão

Table service

Meeting of GLC Board of Directors (GLC Board & Staff) Rencontre du conseil d’administration de la CGL (membres du conseil et employés seulement)

1:30 p.m. Meeting of GLC Board of Directors Rencontre du conseil d’administration de la CGL

• Update: Exploring options for consensus‐based binational ballast water management policy

• Interim Finance Committee report • Blue Accounting and the Great Lakes Commission • Additional Board meeting items TBA

Sainte-Foy/Portneuf, Hilton Québec

GLC Board, staff

Guests: Jerry Cormick, Glenn Sigurdson, and Dana Goodson

5:00 p.m. Closing Remarks: Adjourn for Dinner with Commission

Mot de clôture : ajournement pour le dîner avec la Commission

2019 GREAT LAKES COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING • QUÉBEC

Page 2 of 6

5:30 p.m. Working Dinner/Business Meeting Dîner de travail

Beauport/Beaumont/Bélair, Hilton Québec

6:45 p.m. 2019 Annual Meeting: Call to Order, Welcoming Remarks

Rencontre annuelle 2019: ouverture de la réunion, mot de bienvenue

John Linc Stine, Chair

6:55 p.m. Welcome to Québec

Bienvenue à Québec

GLC Québec Delegation

7:05 p.m. Business of the Great Lakes Commission Affaires de la Commissions des Grands Lacs • Roll Call and Welcome • Recognize and welcome new commissioners • Approval of Meeting Agenda • Approval of Minutes from 2019 Semiannual Meeting • Introduction and discussion of Draft Resolutions


8:00 p.m. Meeting Adjourns until Thursday

Ajournement de la rencontre jusqu’à jeudi

Thursday, October 10 Jeudi, le 10 octobre

Commission Work Session (Commissioners & Staff Only) Séance de travail de la Commission (commissaires et employés seulement)

7:00 a.m. Breakfast

Petit-déjeuner

Courville/Montmorency, Hilton Québec

7:45 a.m. Business of the Great Lakes Commission Affaires de la Commission des Grands Lacs

• Call to order • Report of the Chair • Report of the Nominating Committee • Election of Officers • Approval of Resolutions • Staff report and issue updates

Palais, Hilton Québec John Linc Stine, Chair Darren Nichols, Executive Director

9:45 a.m. Break

Pause

Grande Place, Hilton Québec


Page 3 of 6

NOTE: Public Registration opens at 9:00 a.m. / L’inscription débute à 9 h

October 10 – Great Lakes Commission Annual Meeting (All are welcome) 10 octobre – Rencontre annuelle de la Commission des Grands Lacs (Bienvenue à tous)

10:00 a.m. Welcome from Huron-Wendat Nation

Mot de bienvenue de la Nation Huronne-Wendat

Marcel Godbout

Palais, Hilton Québec

10:15 a.m. Welcome from the Great Lakes Commission

Mot de bienvenue de la Commission des Grands Lacs

John Linc Stine,

Chair Great Lakes

10:20 a.m. Interim update: A binational mediation team will provide an

overview of exploratory conversations relating to a binational ballast water policy for the Great Lakes‐St. Lawrence Basin

Mise à jour : Une équipe de médiation binationale offrira un résumé des conversations exploratoires liées à une éventuelle politique binationale de gestion des eaux de ballast pour le bassin des Grands Lacs et du St‐Laurent.

Jerry Cormick, mediator/facilitator

Glenn Sigurdson, mediator/facilitator

10:45 a.m. Regional Approaches for Planning and Investment This session will present and discuss regional initiatives for assessment and planning for conservation, economic development, infrastructure investment, and public policy

Approches régionales en matière de planification et d’investissement Cette séance comportera une présentation et une discussion sur les initiatives régionales d’évaluation et de planification en matière de conservation, de développement économique, d’investissements dans les infrastructures et de politiques publiques.

Moderator:

Darren Nichols, Great Lakes Commission

Joe Tovar, University of Washington

Gail Krantzberg, McMaster University

11:55 a.m. Adjourn for Lunch

Ajournement pour le déjeuner

12:00 p.m. Opening Lunch:

Welcome from GLC Chair and Québec City Deputy Mayor (TBC)

Luncheon Keynote:

Chantal Rouleau, Delegate Minister for Transport, Government of Québec Déjeuner d’ouverture : Mot de bienvenu du président de la CGL et de la maire suppléante de la Ville de Québec (AC)

Allocution : Mme Chantal Rouleau, Ministre déléguée aux Transports, Gouvernement du Québec

Kent & St. Louis, Hilton Québec

Table service


Page 4 of 6

12:55 p.m. Annual Meeting Call to Order and Welcoming Remarks

Assemblée annuelle: ouverture de la séance et mot de bienvenue

GLC Chair

1:05 p.m. Keynote Presentation: Green, Smart and Lean – The Rotterdam approach to future-proofing a Maritime economy

Présentation d'ouverture: Écologique, intelligente et économique – L'approche de Rotterdam pour pérenniser l’économie maritime

Monica Swanson, Business Digitization

Manager, Port of Rotterdam

1:30 p.m. Maritime Industry in the 21st Century : Sustainability and Competitiveness in un a Changing World

L’industrie maritime au 20e siècle: durabilité et compétitivité dans un monde en mutation

Moderator: Steve Fisher, Great Lakes Commission and American Great Lakes Ports Association

Claudine Couture-Trudel, QSL

Nicole Trépanier, SODES

Philippe Filion, Group Ocean

Monica Swanson, Port of Rotterdam

2:20 p.m. Break

Pause

2:30 p.m. Addressing Resiliency through Water Infrastructure This panel will cover topics such as water infrastructure needs and activities across the basin, water resiliency best practices, tools for municipalities and others Aborder la résilience par le biais des infrastructures d’eau Ce panel portera sur des sujets tels que les besoins et les activités en matière d’infrastructures d'approvisionnement en eau dans le bassin, les meilleures pratiques en résilience de l’eau, les outils pour les municipalités, etc.

Moderator: Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission

Danielle Dagenais, Université de Montréal

Julien St-Laurent, Ville de Trois‐Rivières

Deputy Mayor Michelle Morin-Doyle, Chair, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

3:30 p.m. AquaHacking Challenge – Awards Presentation

Defi AquaHacking – Présentation des gagnants

Naysan Saran, CANN Forecast

Rachel Labbé-Bellas, The Green Stop

3:40 p.m. Blue Economy and Green Tech

Great Lakes opportunities in water innovation, clean technology, and sustainability

Économie bleue et Technologies vertes

Opportunités en matière d'innovation dans le domaine de l'eau, des technologies propres et de la durabilité dans les Grands Lacs.

Moderator: Matt Doss, Great Lakes Commission

John Austin, Michigan Economic Center

David Bolduc, Green Marine

Nan-b de Gaspé Beaubien, de Gaspé Beaubien Foundation


Page 5 of 6

4:30 p.m. Open Public Comment

This time is reserved for Observers, guests and the public to address the Commission on topics of interest to the Great Lakes Basin.

Commentaires publiques

Cette plage horaire est réservée aux observateurs, aux invités et au public afin qu’ils puissent adresser leurs questions à la Commission.

Attendees are invited to address the Commission

(please sign‐in at Registration Table to speak, speaking time may be limited depending on number of speakers)

5:15 p.m. Invitation to 2020 Semiannual Meeting

Invitation à la rencontre semi-annuelle 2020

TBA

5:25 p.m. Closing Remarks

Mot de clôture

GLC Chair and Vice Chair

5:30 p.m. Adjourn Annual Meeting

Ajournement de la rencontre annuelle

GLC Chair

6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

Evening Reception for Commissioners, Observers and Guests

Réception pour les commissaires, les observateurs et les invités

L'Observatoire de la Capitale

Édifice Marie‐Guyart, 31st floor

Friday, October 11 Vendredi, le 10 octobre

Commission Work Session (Commissioners & Staff Only)

7:00 a.m. Breakfast

Petit-déjeuner

2nd floor foyer, Hilton Québec

7:50 a.m. Reconvene, Call to Order Recap of Day 1 and Housekeeping Items

Reprise de la rencontre, retour sur la 1re journée et points d'ordre administratif

Beauport/Beaumont/Bélair,

Hilton Québec GLC Chair

8:00 a.m. Presentation:

Final Draft Legal Assessment of the Great Lakes Basin Compact and the Great Lakes Commission

Présentation:

Projet final d’évaluation juridique de l’entente sur le Bassin des Grands Lacs et sur la Commission des Grands Lacs

Jeffrey B. Litwak, Adjunct Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School and Senior Counsel to the Columbia River Gorge Commission

Richard L. Masters, Special Counsel, and

Nahale Freeland Kalfas, Legal Counsel, Council of State Governments National Center for Interstate Compacts

10:00 a.m. Break

Pause



Page 6 of 6

10:15 a.m. Opportunities for Increased Collaboration with the International Joint Commission (IJC)

Occasions de collaboration accrue avec la Commission mixte internationale

Commissioners and staff from the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Commission will discuss topics of mutual interest, including lake levels, resilient communities, ballast water policy, and more.

GLC Chair, Introduction of IJC Commissioners

12:00 p.m. Working Lunch

Déjeuner de travail

International Joint Commission members and members of the Blue Accounting Advisory Committee will join the Great Lakes Commission for a working lunch and discussion of the future of Blue Accounting and principles of using shared data, metrics and goals to inform and strengthen policy decisions for the Great Lakes Basin.

Great Lakes Commission and invited guests

International Joint Commission

Blue Accounting Advisory Committee


12:30 p.m. Great Lakes Commission: Inaugural meeting with Blue Accounting Advisory Committee

Commission des Grands Lacs: Rencontre inaugurale avec le Comité consultatif de Blue Accounting

The Great Lakes Commission and the Blue Accounting Advisory Committee will discuss the next generation of Blue Accounting, following the Commission’s adoption of Blue Accounting and Blue Accounting Principles

NOTE: International Joint Commission members are encouraged to join this meeting with GLC and Blue Accounting advisory committee

Great Lakes Commission and Blue Accounting Advisory Committee

2:30 p.m. Adjourn Meeting

Fin de la rencontre

GLC Chair

Minutes Attached, for review and approval, are minutes from the Commission’s 2019 Semiannual Meeting, held May 21-23 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Included for your information are minutes of the Board of Directors conference calls held on April 18, May 16, June 20, July 2, July 18, and August 15, 2019.

1

Summary of Actions

1. Approved minutes of the 2018 Annual Meeting held October 1-3, 2018 in Indianapolis, Indiana. 2. Approved one resolution: Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 3. Approved an action item to rescind the 2009 resolutions Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization:

An Opportunity to Fund and Implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy and Address Climate Change; Great Lakes-Great Jobs: Great Lakes Commission Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Priorities for Great Lakes Restoration and Economic Revitalization; Support for the 2009 Annual AWEA Windpower Conference in Chicago; and rescind and replace the 2009 and 2013 resolutions Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Priorities for the Great Lakes navigation system in the federal Water Resources Development Act with the updated approved resolution.

4. Announced the date for the GLC Annual Meeting to be held October 9-11, 2019 in Québec City, Québec.

May 21, 2019 City of Detroit Field Trip 11:45 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. GLC staff facilitated a field trip for Commissioners, visiting sites along the waterfront in the city of Detroit. May 22, 2019 Working Session/General Discussion - Commissioners and Staff 8:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. GLC Chair John Linc Stine and Executive Director Darren Nichols facilitated an orientation for new and returning Commissioners on the GLC’s history and accomplishments, the powers and authorities of the Great Lakes Basin Compact, the 2017-2020 GLC Strategic Plan and GLC operations and procedures for conducting business. Commissioners noted that under the Great Lakes Basin Compact, the GLC has a responsibility to engage and interact with other existing regional bodies of governance and play a key role in consensus-building throughout the Great Lakes Basin. Nichols also facilitated a session on the importance of conducting an independent assessment of the GLC and Great Lakes Basin Compact, including internal and external considerations, benefits of an assessment, and potential timing of the assessment. The delegations each shared views, comments and feedback expressing support for conducting the legal and administrative assessments. Several common themes emerged such as the need for the states to consider a higher level of funding to support GLC operations, the need to consider the GLC’s role in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region through the lens of the Compact and the role of facilitation, coordination and consensus building across the full-range of issues and interests in the region.

Great Lakes Commission 2019 Semiannual Meeting

Weber’s Boutique Hotel, Ann Arbor, MI May 21-23, 2019

Summary Minutes

2

Semiannual Meeting Summary Minutes May 22, 2019 The Annual Meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. EDT by GLC Chair, John Linc Stine (MN). The following Commissioners, Associate Commissioners and Alternates were present:

Loren Wobig, Stephanie Comer - Illinois Sharon Jackson, Kay Nelson, Bruno Piggott - Indiana Candice Miller, James Clift, Jennifer McKay, Stanley Pruss, Marc Smith - Michigan John Linc Stine, Ann Rest - Minnesota Jim Tierney, Eileen Murphy - New York Jim Weakley, Laurie Stevenson - Ohio Tim Bruno, Pat Harkins, Kathy Dahlkemper - Pennsylvania Jean-François Hould, Frederic Lecomte, Marc Gagnon - Québec Dean Haen, Todd Ambs, Steve Galarneau, Noah Roberts - Wisconsin

Staff present: all

1) Call to order, opening remarks: Chair Stine called the meeting to order and welcomed new Commissioners/Alternate Commissioners attending their first meeting.

2) Roll Call: Executive Director Darren Nichols called the roll. A quorum was present with all eight states and Québec represented at the start of the meeting.

3) Approval of Agenda: Chair Stine briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting. A motion to approve the

agenda was made by Indiana, seconded by Illinois. The agenda for the meeting was approved unanimously.

4) Approval of minutes of 2018 Semiannual Meeting: Chair Stine called for a motion to adopt the minutes

of the 2019 Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Wisconsin, seconded by Québec. The minutes were approved unanimously. Chair Stine noted that minutes from Board meetings held between October 2018 and March 2019 were also included in the briefing packet for informational purposes.

5) Observer Request: Chair Stine presented a request by Green Marine to become an Observer. A motion

to approve the request was made by Québec, seconded by Ohio. The request was approved unanimously.

6) Presentations of Resolutions and Action Items: Stine presented and summarized the action items under consideration by the GLC to be voted on the following day. There was on new resolution titled: Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and four resolutions passed at the 2009 Semiannual Meeting and a fifth resolution passed in 2013 that were considered for sunsetting. Stine asked individual Commissioners to provide background on each resolution as appropriate.

Commissioner Weakley (OH) provided background on the new resolution - Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Over time, the fund has built $9.3 billion in revenue. There are currently 140 federally authorized navigation projects in the U.S. Great Lakes navigation system, and 3.3 million cubic yards of sediment that requires dredging each year in U.S. Great Lakes ports, harbors, and navigation channels. Current configuration of U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Operations & Maintenance (O&M) budget insufficiently prioritizes critical Great Lakes navigation system assets. Reforming the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), enacted to fund USACE O&M, to require full appropriation of HMTF revenues

3

would allow the USACE O&M budget to more appropriately address the half-billion-dollar backlog in maintenance needs to the system. The resolution is focused on the appropriation side; the necessary authorization was provided in 2014. There is no substantive change to the previous GLC position on the issue. Commissioner Galarneau (WI) discussed three resolutions recommended to be sunset and two recommended to be sunset and replaced with an updated single resolution (the new Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund resolution). A committee of three Commissioners (Loren Wobig (IL), Jennifer Schultz (MN) and Steve Galarneau (WI)) met to review the resolutions. The committee recommended the following resolutions for sunsetting: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization: An Opportunity to Fund and Implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy and Address Climate Change; Great Lakes-Great Jobs: Great Lakes Commission Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Priorities for Great Lakes Restoration and Economic Revitalization; Support for the 2009 Annual AWEA Windpower Conference in Chicago. The committee recommended that the 2009 and 2013 resolutions Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Priorities for the Great Lakes navigation system in the federal Water Resources Development Act be rescinded and replaced.

7) Discussion/Consultation on Recommended FY2020 Budget: The GLC Board of Directors is responsible for approving the annual budget of the GLC. Article VII Section 8 of the bylaws requires the budget to be received by the Board of Directors at least 45 days prior to the start of the fiscal year and approved by the Board following an opportunity for consultation with the full Commission. Recent practice has been for the Board to receive the budget in mid-April and approve it in mid-May, 45 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1. Each year, the Board appoints an ad hoc Finance Committee comprised of three or four Board members to work with staff on the development of the Commission’s annual budget. The Finance Committee met via conference call on April 10, 2019 to review and discuss the proposed FY2020 budget. Following the committee meeting, the Finance Committee presented a report and recommendations to the GLC Board at the Board’s April 18, 2019 conference call. In recent prior years, the full Commission was consulted on the draft budget via conference call. This year, because the semiannual meeting is being held later in the year, input is being sought in-person at the meeting. Chair Stine acknowledge the larger than usual proposed drawn down on GLC financial reserves and explained that the use of reserve funds will be necessary to balance the budget and pay for other organizational priorities including the proposed administrative assessment. He also noted that state dues have not changed since 2002 creating a more frequent need to dip into reserves to balance the budget. Brief discussion ensued. Commission Deputy Director Tom Crane clarified the history and current balance of the Commission reserve fund. In recent years, reserve funds have been used to support administrative and operational costs not covered by state dues. He also presented the history of state dues amounts and increases. State support to the GLC has not increased since 2002. Crane explained that to adjust for inflation only, annual dues would need to increase by approximately $26,000 per state. Other discussion topics included some mild concerns about the proposed reduction in the training budget; the general importance of maintaining and protecting the reserve fund and opportunities to grow the reserves in the future. Brief discussion also occurred regarding opportunities for support from the Canadian provinces and the importance of the assessment to inform decisions on long-term strategy for state support to the GLC. Chair Stine outlined next steps, noting that the vote on the budget would take place the following day. He recommended that Board members approve the budget because it provides the support needed to continue operations and allows the GLC to move forward on other items under consideration by the agency.

4

8) Lunch: Chair Stine adjourned the business meeting at 11:50 a.m. EDT. Commissioners, observers and guests gathered for lunch. During lunch Chair Stine and Executive Director Nichols provided remarks about the importance of the Commission’s work to the Great Lakes region and the value of partnerships with the Commission’s observers and guests.

9) Reconvene and Call to Order: At 12:45 p.m. EDT, Chair Stine reconvened the meeting and welcomed

Observers and guests. He introduced the welcome speaker.

10) Welcome to Michigan: The Honorable Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General and Great Lakes Commissioner, gave opening remarks about the importance of working together to protect the shared Great Lakes resources. She welcomed the opportunity to work with her fellow Commissioners to ensures the Great Lakes remain a world class resource supporting the regional economy and quality of life for the region’s residents. She highlighted several priorities for her office including addressing PFAS pollution; the debate over the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” within the Clean Water Act; oil spill risks from pipelines; combined animal feeding operations (CAFOs); climate change; and invasive carp. She concluded saying that the Commission is both a meaningful and impactful organization and that she hoped that its work will be long-lasting and benefit generations to come.

11) Great Lakes Water Tension in the 21st Century: Peter Annin, author of “Great Lakes Water Wars” and

Director of the Mary Griggs Burke Center for Freshwater Innovation at Northland College, spoke about growing tensions over Great Lakes waters in the 21st century. He spoke about the history of the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact that is in its 11th year and the ongoing problem of lack of access to clean water world-wide and the emerging problem now in the Great Lake-St. Lawrence River region. Annin provided examples of how straddling communities/counties (those that straddle drainage divides between the Great Lakes and other drainage basins) are challenging water managers charged with implementing the water resources compact and regional water resources agreement. He talked briefly about emerging issues and situations in Waukesha, Wisconsin and Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin among others. He concluded by saying that overall, he believes that the compact and regional agreement are working as expected.

12) Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Tools for Resolving Conflict towards Collaborative Governance: Jerry Cormick, a principal with the CSE group, with a long history of successful mediation and facilitation on a variety of issues, spoke about consensus processes (the art of the possible) in working toward consensus on difficult issues. He reviewed two case studies: the Lower Colorado River Multispecies Conservation Plan and the Yukon Plaster Mining Regulatory Regime. Both included a consensus building process that required intensive stakeholder involvement.

13) Roundtable Discussion: A series of short presentations and discussions focused on the needs, opportunities and roles in the future of a Great Lakes Basin “stewardship economy.” The speakers included Maria Carmen Lemos, University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability; Neil Hawkins, Fred A. And Barbara M. Erb Family Foundation; and Sanjiv Sinha PhD, ECT Consulting.

14) Roundtable Discussion: A series of short presentations described the power and potential of Blue

Accounting to build consensus and support Great Lakes restoration and the Basin economy. The speakers included Helen Taylor, from the Nature Conservancy, Bob Lambe, from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, David McLean from the Dow Chemical Company and Joel Brammeier from the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

15) Business of the Great Lakes Commission: Chair Stine moderated a session addressing the following

Commission business items:

5

• Resolution – Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This resolution calls

on the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation to support a long-term solution for harbor maintenance funding.

There was brief discussion and some clarifying questions about two of the “whereas” clauses. These were answered by Commissioner Weakley and no changes were suggested.

A motion was made by Indiana and seconded by Michigan to approve the resolution as presented. There was no further discussion among Commissioners.

Action: The motion to approve the draft resolution passed unanimously.

Action Item – Sunsetting 2009 and 2013 Resolutions. The Commission had previously discussed the sunsetting of the following Resolutions: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization: An Opportunity to Fund and Implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy and Address Climate Change; Great Lakes-Great Jobs: Great Lakes Commission Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Priorities for Great Lakes Restoration and Economic Revitalization; Support for the 2009 Annual AWEA Windpower Conference in Chicago; Reform of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and Priorities for the Great Lakes navigation system in the federal Water Resources Development Act. A motion to approve the action item was made by Illinois and seconded by Pennsylvania. There was no further discussion among Commissioners. Action: The action item as presented was approved unanimously.

16) Invitation to the 2019 Annual Meeting: Chair Stine invited Jean-François Hould, Québec Delegation Chair to the podium. Hould presented a short video and invited Commissioners and guests to the 2019 Annual Meeting, to be held October 9-11, 2019 in Québec City, Québec.

17) Adjournment: Chair Stine moved to adjourn the meeting. He invited the Commissioners and guests to a reception at the Wyndham Garden Hotel just down the road from Weber’s Inn. The motion to adjourn was seconded by the Commissioner from Indiana and seconded by the Commissioner from Québec and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned for the day at 4:40 p.m. EDT.

May 23, 2019

Working Session - Commissioners and Staff 8:20 a.m. – 12:10 p.m. 18) Reconvene: Chair Stine called the working session to order at 8:20 a.m. EDT. He briefly recapped the

previous day, discussed a few housekeeping items, and thanked the Michigan delegation for their hospitality and Consul General of Canada for their sponsorship of the meeting.

19) Welcome to Commissioners: The honorable Joe Comartin, Canadian Consul General in Detroit opened his remarks by recognizing that the cooperative and harmonious relationship between Canada and U.S. is long-standing, crucial and unique. He noted that the Great Lakes unites the two countries, makes us responsible to each other, and reflects the best of our countries’ relationship. Comartin then spoke about the key Great Lakes priorities for Canada, starting with cleaning up the remaining Areas of Concern and the need for continued monitoring and remediation efforts. He also pointed to the continuing problem of Lake Erie algal blooms that have returned and need to be addressed. To address this problem, he noted that the Lake Erie Action Plan, developed by Canada and Ontario, includes 120 voluntary and

6

mandatory actions from sewage treatment to fertilizer standards. Comartin commented that ballast water regulatory requirements are also a priority and are being established for ships discharging to Canadian waters. He reported that Canada would like to see the U.S. move in the same direction and align technology with the needs of the Great Lakes to ensure there are not foreign species entering the water. Comartin also highlighted climate change as an urgent issue and priority, reporting that Canada has been a leader and will meet the terms of the Paris Agreement. He identified several specific initiatives that will be a key part of Canada’s progress and noted that these climate commitments will bring positive impacts to the economy in the form of green jobs and new technologies. Comartin then discussed the key role of trade in the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Canada is the top trading partner in 37 states and noted that the tariffs imposed by the current U.S. administration tarnishes the relationship between the two countries. Comartin said that Canada is looking forward to rehabilitating the relationship and thinks the recent agreement to lift the tariffs is a good positive step.

Comartin discussed the ongoing construction of the Gordie Howe bridge, scheduled to open in 2024. He stated the new border crossing at Detroit is an absolute need as the current bridge is old and poorly maintained, though will continue to operate. He provided benefits of the new crossing, including that it will be a more efficient way to transport goods, have more technologically advanced cargo screening, and the redundancy of another crossing will enhance security in the event of a terrorist attack or crisis.

To close, Comartin emphasized the importance of the countries’ relationship and the need to put dents behind us. He called on the U.S. and Canada to continue to cooperate on Great Lakes protection and use the existing relationship to facilitate that cooperation.

20) Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) Discussion Panel: Chair Stine introduced a session to discuss VIDA provisions, goals, and Commission involvement in working toward a binational solution regarding ballast water management. Chair Stine noted that rather than waiting for the U.S. to promulgate its rule in accordance with VIDA, the Board considers it wise to begin a transparent, neutral, consensus-based, binational approach to be incorporated into the U.S. EPA proposed rulemaking. Chair Stine reported that the U.S. EPA’s Office of Water and Members of Congress have not indicated their willingness to rely on such a consensus-based approach. He stated that the Board’s current intention is to continue to move forward convening a broad stakeholder group outside of the federal rulemaking process. The draft federal rule is proposed for January 2020, meaning that this is unique opportunity with a narrow time frame to act. Brian Manwaring introduced the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR) as a federal program dedicated to environmental collaboration and conflict resolution. Dana Goodson (via phone) shared the Regional and National Ocean Planning work of the USIECR, highlighting capacity building and facilitator services among diverse stakeholders. Jerry Cormick, a Principal with the CSE Group, discussed the importance of the collaborative framework process and identified key questions to start the process. Cormick acknowledged that the January 2020 timeline presents difficulties in building consensus. Glenn Sigurdson (via phone) elaborated on the process, noting it will be iterative as more stakeholders are engaged. He discussed establishing a foundation for collaboration as a critical element of the process. The Commission reflected on the timeline challenges and if a unique approach for the Great Lakes would be preferable over a uniform national approach. Canada is in a different place than the U.S. on ballast water, and concerns were voiced that the processes would not align well. The ballast water agreement in Canada will go into effect next year and the Ballast Water Convention requires technologies to be incorporated by September 2024. Given that Transport Canada is ready to implement new measures by next year, their process does not appear to accommodate the Great Lakes Commission to ensure there is only one set of standards.

7

The Commissioners echoed general interest in a collaborative process under ideal circumstances but identified time as an impediment. It was noted that the U.S. promulgation will be litigated, so while timeline is limited there will be lags in the implementation that may provide additional space for consensus-building. It was clarified that the current suggestion from the Board is exploration of stakeholders and the relationships of their interests, but no proposal has been made to the U.S. EPA. Chair Stine indicated that the Board has determined that it is worth investing in the potential of a consensus-based process. Chair Stine relayed that the Board agreed the process cannot be done without fully engaging interests on the Canadian side of the border. The extent of the collaborative process was discussed, noting that it is not just the standard but the mechanism of implementation and overall understanding of the circumstances that could be impacted. It was acknowledged that there would be an ongoing conversation beyond rulemaking, including implementation, technology, and management practices, and the Commission could contribute to that conservation. Chair Stine noted the need to decide about taking a first step, acknowledging the long-term benefits from consensus conversation on this issue that will remain in the Great Lakes. Executive Director Nichols stated that the GLC will benefit with the type of conversations that USIECR is proposing. In closing, the Commissioners expressed a cautious approval to proceed engaging this process but requested greater details on process and cost ahead of next board call.

21) Agency Administrative Assessments: Dr. Craig Shinn of the Center for Public Service, Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University provided an overview presentation of an administrative assessment proposed for the GLC. Shinn mentioned the importance of having a better sense of organization structure and function and a better delineation or roles and responsibilities between the Board, commissioners and staff. Shinn stated that a fair amount of organizational management centers around the strain between the roles we create and the people who are in those roles. Shin stated there is more than one appropriate model, so the questions center on finding the best model for the organization. Shinn discussed types of roles in organizations and how they fit together and noted that the proper consideration of the staff role is critically important. Shinn noted the importance of understanding networks between different organizations, and the strength of network ties. Nichols provided a general endorsement of the importance of periodic assessments to agencies like the GLC.

22) Legal Assessment of the Great Lakes Basin Compact for the GLC: A team of attorneys and legal scholars

from the National Center for Interstate Compacts (NCIC) described their work to assess the Great Lakes Basin Compact – its history and authorities – and potential roles for the GLC and the Great Lakes states and provinces in general to use the Compact more effectively going forward. Presenters included Richard L. Masters, Special Counsel, Council of State Governments (CSG) (NCIC); Nahale Freeland Kalfas (participating by phone), Legal Counsel, (CSG) (NCIC); and Jeffrey B. Litwak, Adjunct Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School and Senior Counsel to the Columbia River Gorge Commission. The panelists briefing introduced themselves.

8

Litwak described how a legal assessment is a tool to inform the overall GLC assessment; to inform strategic planning (i.e., to inform legislative, regulatory, and judicial planning); and to inform commissioners and staff. Litwak described four specific points the legal assessment team is looking for regarding the Great Lakes Basin Compact: 1) elements of modern interstate compacts, 2) administrative procedure and transparency, 3) how courts interpret compacts, and 4) Ontario and Québec’s participation. He also noted examples of related organizations’ administrative procedures, including examples from the Columbia River Gorge Commission, and examples of how courts interpret compacts. Litwak noted that the legal assessment team will be looking at how Ontario and Québec obtain their authority to participate across the border. Litwak outlined the legal assessment team’s planned steps: 1) collect information; 2) prepare a template of legal and administrative principles; 3) prepare a draft statement of the Compact and authorities; 4) prepare a draft legal assessment report; 4) present the draft assessment report at the GLC Annual Meeting in October; and 5) prepare a final report. Nichols thanked the legal assessment team and spoke about the value of a legal assessment. Nichols requested commissioners inform the team if they have areas of interest to be covered in the legal assessment. Chair Stine requested the legal assessment highlight anything envisioned by the founders of the Compact regarding how to pay for the compact agency’s work. He also requested the assessment highlight the financing dialogue in the forming documents, if any such dialogue existed. Litwak noted an important part of a compact is having a “funding provision,” but one of the problems with having a funding provision in a compact document is that these provisions may be constraining and inflexible. Bruno (PA) asked that the legal assessment cover historical conversations that led to the GLC being formed. Smith (MI) asked for the assessment to report on the history of the water resources compact and how (if at all) this compact relates to or conflicts with the Great Lakes Basin Compact. Stine thanked the legal assessment team for an informative presentation. 23) Follow up discussion on the GLC budget and reserve funds Stine reviewed the previous day’s budget discussion and suggested the need to better define the management and use of the GLC’s reserve fund including possibly setting a dues threshold level to protect the reserve fund into the future. Stine stated an additional need for an earnest conversation about supplemental dues, and requested the conversation take place promptly so Commissioners may present requests to state budgets. Stine offered the idea of forming an “Interim Finance Committee” populated with interested Board members and commissioners to be charged with the above mentioned tasks. Several Commissioners volunteered to serve. Stine welcomed their service but suggested that the final membership be set when the Board formally establishes the Committee, hopefully on its June conference call.

9

Stine stated a desire to avoid going another 19 years before asking for additional funding. Bruno noted we might be able to ‘strike while the iron is hot’ in certain jurisdictions to do more expedient financial asks. Stine asked for a motion to approve the FY2020 budget as presented on May 22. A motion to approve the budget was made by New York and seconded by Indiana. The motion to approve the budget passed unanimously.

24) Closing Remarks and Adjournment: Vice Chair Sharon Jackson (IN) closed the meeting and provided brief remarks regarding old and new friends gathering to make and keep the Great Lakes great. She noted the desire to take the Great Lakes to the next level environmentally and economically, and to protect them as a beautiful resource. She thanked all for their dedication and attention and said that she looks forward to meeting in the fall in Québec City. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. EDT.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas R. Crane Deputy Director

1

Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors

Conference Call Minutes April 18, 2019

The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. EDT by John Linc Stine, board chair. The following members were present: Loren Wobig - Illinois Sharon Jackson - Indiana James Clift - Michigan John Linc Stine - Minnesota Jim Tierney - New York Mindy Bankey - Ohio Tim Bruno - Pennsylvania Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Darren Nichols, Tom Crane, Victoria Pebbles, Matt Doss, Beth Wanamaker, Erika Jensen, Nicole Zacharda, Joe Bertram, Eric Ellis

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: Galarneau asked to include a discussion of raising the dues on an interim basis to the agenda. The Board unanimously approved the meeting agenda and the March 21 minutes.

2) Finance Committee Update – report on 2020 Budget: The Board received a memo on the FY20 budget in advance of the call. The operating budget has been proposed at $4.3 million, a slight decrease over FY19 budget. Based on projected revenue and expenses for the assessment ($150,000 in FY20), the budget will be unbalanced. The Finance Committee suggests going into reserves (which currently stand at about $900,000) to balance the budget. Pass through funds for FY20 are estimated at $13.3 million. Concern was raised over the amount of drawdown from the reserves over the last 4-5 years, and that trend continuing. However, state dues do not cover expenses and that has made drawdowns necessary. State dues are currently only about three percent of the budget. It was noted that even if dues are doubled, which would be politically difficult in many states especially considering the possibility of a financial downturn, it still would not cover expenses. Staff is exploring options for additional funding. Action will be taken on the FY20 budget at the Semiannual Meeting.

3) VIDA – GLC Update: The EPA Region 5 Deputy Director has acknowledged receipt of the GLC VIDA letter and are working on a response. The Board’s concerns over use of STAG funding were shared with him informally. Conversations are ongoing with potential neutral third parties.

4) Invasive Mussel Collaborative (IMC) Board Statement: The statement was previously passed on an 8-1 vote: Pennsylvania voted no, and Michigan abstained but offered comments during the voting period. Illinois voted yes but offered clarifying questions similar to Pennsylvania’s concerns. Staff asked the Board to provide a determination on whether to amend the statement. Bruno explained that Pennsylvania wanted to clarify that the IMC cannot proceed with a control treatment without the approval of the state that has jurisdiction. Jensen clarified that any experimental treatment would be discussed with the states in advance and approvals would be secured. Pennsylvania would vote yes with language clarifying this point. Clift noted Michigan has some minor edits and concerns over whether the full Commission should vote on the issue. While the Board in practice has operated with the authority to act on statements, the practice may need to be clarified in the future. Bruno moved to amend the statement to address Pennsylvania’s concerns and consider the practice of the Board or Commission voting on the statement at a future time; Galarneau seconded. Michigan abstained from the vote, all other jurisdictions voted yes.

5) Project proposals:

2

a. Symposium on dredging windows: Last summer, the GLC Board approved to have GLC staff, on behalf of the Great Lakes Dredging Team, pursue support from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust to plan and convene a symposium on environmental windows for dredging for the Lake Michigan basin. Crane is working with state agencies to pursue funding for the symposium.

b. Conservation Kick: Zacharda presented a proposal for a new project called “Conservation Kick” which would create a direct online portal for businesses and individuals to contribute to reducing phosphorus losses into the Great Lakes, based on the model of crowdfunding. An additional benefit would be supporting local producers. The Board expressed interest in the project and encouraged reaching out to partners to leverage their expertise. Staff will share a short summary of the potential project. The Board agreed to share any additional feedback with Zacharda.

c. Great Lakes Coastal Assembly: Ellis presented on staff participation in the Great Lakes Coastal Assembly. A memo on the topic was sent to the Board prior to the call.

6) Semiannual Meeting planning and agenda: Staff presented the current draft agenda for the Semiannual

Meeting, which includes orientation time for new commissioners and one public afternoon/evening session. Tuesday includes field trips in Detroit and a short press event. The Board agreed to reach out to staff with any thoughts on the agenda.

7) Assessment Committee – Update: Three documents were provided to the Board in advance of the call. The committee has reached out to the Council of State Governments to undertake a legal assessment, of the Compact, which would lead three additional stages of an overall assessment. The committee agreed to clarify that all jurisdictions would be involved in each stage of the assessment. The Board discussed bringing the agreement for the legal assessment to the full Committee but did not pursue this option. No objection was raised to proceeding with the legal assessment.

8) Executive Director Update: This section was skipped because of time. The Board agreed to come back to

the need for a dues increase at a future call.

With no further business, the call was adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Darren Nichols Executive Director /bw

1


Conference Call Minutes May 16, 2019

The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. EDT by John Linc Stine, board chair. The following members were present: Loren Wobig - Illinois Sharon Jackson - Indiana James Clift - Michigan John Linc Stine - Minnesota Jim Tierney - New York Mindy Bankey - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Jean-Francois Hould - Quebec Tim Bruno - Pennsylvania Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Darren Nichols, Tom Crane, Victoria Pebbles, Matt Doss, Beth Wanamaker, Erika Jensen, Nicole Zacharda, Joe Bertram, Eric Ellis

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: The Board minutes from April were approved unanimously.

2) Review Commissioner/Board Lists: This was informational only – the GLC’s lists have been updated recently following many new appointments. If there are additional updates let Nichols know.

3) Review Commission’s decision‐making processes in advance of Semiannual meeting: Nichols reviewed the decision-making process as defined in the Operations & Procedures manual, which refers to the Compact and Bylaws. Each jurisdiction has three votes regardless of composition of the delegation. Commissioners may delegate their votes to a proxy by providing notice to the executive director in writing in advance of a meeting. In practice, Ontario/Quebec have voted on all programmatic decisions of the GLC (resolutions, etc.); the provinces do not vote on the budget or on U.S. federal legislative priorities.

4) Review and Approve Actions/Resolutions to be forwarded to the Commission: Crane reviewed the action items and resolutions to be reviewed at the Semiannual Meeting, which include a consultation on the FY2020 budget, which will be presented for approval by the Board, either at the meeting or on the June Board call. Wobig (IL) moved to consider the resolutions; Clift (MI) seconded. The resolutions and action items were approved for consideration by the Commission at the 2019 Semiannual Meeting unanimously.

5) Review Final Draft May 21‐23 Commission Meeting Agenda: Nichols reviewed the agenda for the May

21-23 Semiannual Meeting. Staff will change the agenda to read “consultation on the FY2020 budget.”

6) Quarterly Financial Report: Bertram presented the quarterly financial report. Salary and benefits are under budget but the general budget is overbudget year-to-date. Bertram noted the GLC currently expects to finish the year with a net loss between $125-150,000; the agency originally budgeted for a loss of $100,000.

7) Invasive Mussel Collaborative (IMC) Board Statement: Staff sought feedback from the Board on how to

move forward with the joint IMC statement. Carr (ON) moved to endorse the statement; Jackson (IN) seconded. Staff clarified that most of the large beds of invasive mussels on the bottom of the lakes are mostly in Lakes Michigan, Ontario and Huron. The statement was approved unanimously by the Board.

8) Project proposals: Doss presented a proposal for a project building on the GLRI economic impact report released last fall. He is planning a workshop in the summer. Eric Ellis, Project Manager for the Coastal Conservation and Habitat Restoration Program, presented an opportunity to host an intern to study the

2

socio-economic impacts of Great Lakes habitat restoration. This study is an off shoot of a previous GLC project with Grand Valley State University in the Muskegon Lake Area of Concern which demonstrated a 6 to 1 economic return on restoration dollar investments. The intern is a graduate student at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and is sponsored by the Japanese government. Pebbles noted that during last month’s Board call, Zacharda presented an initial proposal for the Conservation Kick project; a more elaborate proposal was included in the Board packet. This project would also build on relationships with the agriculture community that were built through the Erie P Market and GLSNRP projects. Nichols noted an update on the process of developing a white paper on the status of coastal resiliency in the Great Lakes was included in the Board packet: the GLC could apply to the NSF to convene a conference on needs in this space. However, as the GLC is not eligible to serve as primary investigator; the University of Michigan has offered to fill that role. EPA and the Great Lakes Protection Fund were recommended as partners for the white paper. Nichols noted that he has not yet reached out to the Coastal States Organization. He has heard that they would want to look at coasts more broadly than the Great Lakes and may take a narrower look at coastal resiliency than the GLC would. Board members with additional questions are encouraged to reach out directly to Nichols. Nichols agreed to send an email to the Board for additional feedback on each project.

9) Executive Director Update:


1


Conference Call Minutes June 20, 2019

The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. EDT by John Linc Stine, board chair. The following members were present: Loren Wobig - Illinois Sharon Jackson - Indiana John Linc Stine - Minnesota Jim Tierney - New York Mary Mertz - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Tim Bruno (joined late) - Pennsylvania Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Darren Nichols, Matt Doss, Beth Wanamaker, Erika Jensen, Joe Bertram, Victoria Pebbles (joined late)

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: The June agenda and May Board minutes were approved unanimously.

2) Executive Director’s Report: Nichols noted that staff has developed several project proposals and asked for Board approved to send them via email for discussion offline. This plan was accepted. Nichols also discussed recruitment for the Senior Advisor for External Relations – two candidates have currently been interviewed and the position will be open until it’s filled. There is also an open senior-level information management position that will be posted in the next few weeks. The IJC is currently holding workshops around the region focused on their role and general priorities for the Great Lakes Basin. Nichols encouraged Board members and Commissioners to attend. Nichols has been contacted by USGS about convening a science forum on coastal resiliency, as well as funding support for a white paper. Tierney and Galarneau support the GLC pulling together regional work on coastal resiliency. Nichols noted that the GLC does not have funding to pursue the work at this time; he recommended that the states contribute to support the project rather than pursue a grant. Galarneau noted that GLRI funding could be pursued. Tierney noted that GLNPO has indicated a request from the states for funding on this issue would be welcomed. Nichols asked for Board approval to prepare a proposal and it was received. Stine asked him to be inclusive of any funding opportunities.

3) Status Update: Brandon Road Lock & Dam: Wobig noted that he Corps has finished the chief’s report with the intention of forwarding it to Congress. The Corps have asked Illinois to SIGN a preliminary design agreement that will confirm the elements of the project and move forward to design phase. Illinois is waiting for coordination with the other Great Lakes states and IS setting up a meeting July 16-17 in Chicago for the states to discuss each component included in the chief’s plan. Wobig noted that Michigan and Illinois have been coordinating on responses. Wobig noted that each state will be allowed more than one attendee and encouraged states to include staff who can respond to both technical and policy/funding considerations. Wobig noted that the GLC has served as a fiscal convener for the Soo Locks in the past and could potentially participate in that role for Brandon Road. Nichols asked that the GLC be included as an observer to negotiations if that potential role was being considered.

4) Solicit Actions/Resolutions to be considered by the Commission: Stine suggested updating past

resolutions on coastal resiliency. Galarneau suggested reevaluating what has been said in past resolutions about climate change and resiliency and suggested a call to action.

5) Solicit Commission Annual Meeting Agenda items: Mertz suggested an update on coastal wetlands design

and technology in the Basin.

2

6) Select and establish an Interim FY 2021 Finance Committee: Stine noted that the Board received a memo on this topic prior to the call and that many of the suggested committee members volunteered. Galarneau asked that Haen be replaced with Ambs due to conversation about state funds. Stine asked for a motion from the Board approving the concept of the memo and suggested working individually with the Board on the members. Tierney moved; Bruno seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.

7) Vessel discharge: consensus-based dialogue: Congress created a process for the Great Lakes states and

governors to create a special process for ballast water discharge in the Basin. EPA has indicated that its rule may be adopted in January 2020, potentially later. A draft Canadian federal rule has been published. A variety of other maritime transportation issues could also be considered. There is a proposal to hire a neutral third-party to begin exploratory conversations. The outcomes from the conversations could help guide federal rulemaking and future GLC work. Stine asked for Board authorization for exploring the potential for consensus around some key concepts. The work would involve interviews with Jerry Cormick and Glenn Sigurdson; they would provide analysis from those interviews by mid-July. This work is estimated to cost $41,500. Galarneau asked if there is an opportunity to get additional proposals from Great Lakes organizations or universities to do this work. Stine noted that significant previous binational work was a major consideration. Nichols noted that in-region partners might have baggage and that this would only be the first step of an assessment. Nichols noted he believes that work in this area will prompt members of Congress to appropriate the funding included for the GLC in the Coast Guard Authorization bill. Nichols noted he has asked the environmental federal agencies if they are willing to invest or find acceptable funding for this process and they indicated it is possible. Stine asked for a motion to authorize the exploratory step of contracting with Cormick and Sigurdson: Jackson moved; Stine seconded. Galarneau suggested including additional funding in case costs run over; the motion was approved unanimously.


1


Conference Call Minutes July 2, 2019

The meeting was called to order at 11 a.m. EDT by John Linc Stine, board chair. The following members were present: Loren Wobig - Illinois Sharon Jackson - Indiana John Linc Stine - Minnesota Jim Tierney, Don Zelazny - New York Bill Carr - Ontario Jean Francois Hould - Quebec Tim Bruno - Pennsylvania Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Darren Nichols, Tom Crane, Beth Wanamaker

1) Brandon Road Lock & Dam conversation: Nichols asked the Board to authorize the GLC to provide

neutral facilitation services in support of IL and MI’s work to convene the states to address the threat of Asian carp at the Brandon Road Lock & Dam. Tierney had to leave but said that New York approves of the GLC serving as a neutral facilitator. Nichols discussed the materials sent to the Board in advance of the call, including an invite to a meeting on July 16-17 in or around Chicago to discuss options for Brandon Road. He recapped the GLC’s history of work on Asian carp and Brandon Road and authorizations provided to the GLC under the Great Lakes Basin Compact. He noted the GLC is prepared to invest $40,000 of funding for the meeting, which would come out of an existing $300,000 grant from the Joyce Foundation.

2) Voting: Wobig (IL) motioned to consider the proposal; Jackson (IN) seconded. Galarneau asked for clarification that the June 30 memo was for background and not part of the motion; Nichols confirmed. Galarneau noted that he cannot commit to a requirement that WI will not hold any press events; however, he is not aware of any. Nichols noted that he had offered that consideration as a best practice, but that requirement is not part of the motion and encouraged the jurisdictions to refrain from conversations that are not part of the process. Zelazny noted that representatives will need to confer with other parties on decisions; Nichols encouraged the jurisdictions to refrain from conversations with other parties as much as possible before July 16. The motion was approved unanimously.


1


Conference Call Minutes July 18, 2019

The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. EDT by John Linc Stine, board chair. The following members were present: Loren Wobig - Illinois Sharon Jackson - Indiana James Clift - Michigan John Linc Stine - Minnesota Don Zelazny - New York Bill Carr - Ontario Jean Francois Hould - Quebec Tim Bruno - Pennsylvania Steve Galarneau , Noah Roberts - Wisconsin Staff present: Darren Nichols, Tom Crane, Matt Doss, Beth Wanamaker, Erika Jensen, Victoria Pebbles

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: The July agenda and June 20 and July 2 Board minutes were approved unanimously.

2) Great Lakes Basin Compact – Legal assessment – project update: Jeff Litwak gave an update on the status of the legal assessment of the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The team has been looking at the Compact’s authority’s in relation to other regional organizations and have been considering the GLC’s unique legal competencies. They are still looking for some state’s legislative histories – several jurisdictions recommended reaching out to state historians to get this information. They expect to have a draft report by August 12. The jurisdictions will have two or three weeks to respond. A final draft of the report will be presented at the October annual meeting. The assessment team will incorporate comments and present a final report following the annual meeting.

3) Administrative assessment: Craig Shinn summarized his work so far. The first phase of the assessment is looking at organizational health, resource and financial management and contracting. Nichols will send his draft to the Board.

4) Executive Director’s Report: Nichols announced the hiring of Eric Brown as Senior Advisor for External

Relations. A leadership position in information management will be posted soon.

5) Status Update: Brandon Road Lock & Dam: Wobig recapped the meeting in Illinois on the Brandon Road Lock & Dam. Illinois and Michigan will be sending out a press release this morning. The meeting facilitators will provide a formal summary within the next two weeks.

6) Solicit Actions/Resolutions to be considered by the Commission: Crane noted that there is a resolution review committee call soon to look at resolutions to be considered for sunsetting.

7) Solicit Commission Annual Meeting Agenda items: Hould presented Quebec’s proposed agenda items at

the annual meeting, which include green infrastructure, climate change, clean technology, tribal relations, and others. Nichols noted he has received a request for conversation between GLC commissioners and new IJC commissioners.

1) Vessel discharge: update on efforts to convene a consensus-based dialogue: Jerry Cormick and Glenn Sigurdson from the CSE Group provided an update on the status of their efforts to begin a dialogue toward a consensus-based binational solution for ballast water management. The team noted they will

2

working toward recommendations which may not become final until after the EPA releases their revisions to the vessel general permit (VGP) standard in December 2020.


1


Conference Call Minutes August 15, 2019

The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. EDT by Sharon Jackson, board vice chair. The following members were present: Loren Wobig - Illinois Sharon Jackson - Indiana James Clift - Michigan Jim Tierney, Don Zelazny - New York Kerith Brand - Quebec Tim Bruno - Pennsylvania Mindy Bankey - Ohio Steve Galarneau , Noah Roberts - Wisconsin Staff present: Darren Nichols, Tom Crane, Matt Doss, Joe Bertram, Eric Brown.

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: The August agenda and July 18 Board minutes were approved unanimously.

2) Quarterly Financial Report: Joe Bertram reviewed the financial report for the quarter ending June 30. These are un-audited figures. The auditors will be beginning work on the annual audit in the fall. Currently, for the entire 2019 fiscal year, we are under budget on indirect cost recovery by about 32%. This is a result of five staff who left the GLC in FY 2019 and were not replaced. Thus, we did not recover indirect costs from salaries and indirect costs from these staff. All states have paid their dues for the past year. We still have about $726,000 in reserves, although we have been drawing these down. The finance committee met recently and is working on a policy for reserve funds, a dues increase, and other matters. Commissioner Clift asked about the change in the deficit shown on the statement compared to the previous report. Tom Crane noted the impact of less indirect cost recovery, which could not be projected accurately previously due to staff who left the GLC during the last quarter. Drawdown of reserves are impacted by cashflow needs. Clift expressed concern about how expenses are presented and the impact on the current year’s budget. He asked for further updates on these issues. Crane will be arranging a call with the finance committee next week to review the auditor’s report.

3) Executive Director’s Report: GLC Executive Director Nichols provided the following updates: • Update on legal and administrative assessments: The first draft of the legal assessment of the

compact has been received; this will be reviewed with the executive committee and then with the full board. Dr. Shinn has provided some initial observations and recommendations for potential team members to work on the administrative assessment, including the agency’s finances. The Board is asked to recommend other individuals who could be part of this team. The aim is to have the team in place by the time of the annual meeting in Quebec.

• Recruitment updates: Chief Information Officer: We have a final draft position announcement for this position, which will fill the role previously held by Steve Cole. Nichols invited recommendations for individuals for this position and urged the Board to share the position announcement when it is released.

• Brandon Road Lock and Dam – facilitated dialogue: We have received a meeting summary for the two-day meeting held in July. There is an open question about next steps and whether the states wish to continue with facilitated dialogue. Loren Wobig noted that there was some misunderstanding in the summary about whether the Corps can accept funding from other entities on behalf of the nonfederal sponsor; the summary says it cannot, but the Corps says it can. Illinois has drafted a

2

preliminary engineering and design (PED) agreement with the Corps and is working on a draft intergovernmental agreement; both documents are under review in the governors office. He is preparing an update for the meeting participants. Illinois is interested in continuing to use the facilitators as discussion of potential agreements moves forward. Nichols emphasized the need for further discussion about the long-term role of the GLC in working with the states on solutions to preventing the introduction of Asian carp, including the Brandon Road project.

• Vessel Discharge – binational exploratory conversations: The facilitators continue to have conversations with key stakeholders interested in this issue. Board members are encouraged to speak with them. We expect to have recommendations around the time of the annual meeting.

• New Legislation Reauthorizing the GLRI: Matt Doss noted that bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate reauthorizing the GLRI and gradually increasing the authorized funding level from $300 million to $475 million in FY 2026. The GLC is on record supporting the GLRI and Doss invited the Board’s concurrence to support this legislation. There was discussion of a potential resolution supporting the GLRI and its reauthorization. It was suggested that the GLC consider any current resolutions related to the GLRI that could be updated.

4) Solicit Actions/Resolutions to be considered by the Commission: Jackson noted the memo about review

of resolutions that are ten years old to be rescinded, updated or retained. New resolutions are also invited to be considered at the annual meeting, with the aim that these be drafted and vetted in advance of the meeting. The resolution review committee recommended that the 2009 resolution on the water-energy nexus be rescinded and updated with support from a small committee of commissioners. Clift noted that one of the Michigan commissioners is interested in a resolution on the Brandon Road issue; he will reach out to him to clarify his interest in helping with this resolution. Commissioner Roberts is interested in drafting resolutions on the energy-water nexus and on climate change. He committed to providing draft resolutions before the next board call. Nichols asked that Commissioners coordinate with GLC staff immediately about potential resolutions and a schedule for having drafts prepared by Sept. 12 in advance of the Sept. 19 Board call. Jackson asked Nichols to send a reminder email to Commissioners about the process and schedule for submitting resolutions.

5) Review Commission Annual Meeting DRAFT Agenda: Jackson noted the draft agenda and said that the

final agenda will be approved on the next board call. Nichols briefly reviewed the draft agenda. Online registration will begin soon and the block of hotel rooms are available to reserve.

6) Board Round Table: Jackson invited any updates from the Board members.

With no further business, the call was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Darren Nichols Executive Director /md

Action/Information Items

• Resolution – Support for Congressional Reauthorization of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: GLRI was initiated in 2009 by the U.S. federal government and has been subsequently reauthorized several times over the past 10 years. Funding has remained fairly constant at approximately $300 million annually and was last authorized in 2016, for a period extending to 2021. This funding has supported implementation of more than 4,700 projects, including cleanup work for Areas of Concern, support for fisheries, prevention of excessive nutrient loading, and many others. Reauthorizing GLRI and supporting current Congressional efforts to increase funding to $475 million annually would expand the impact of this successful program.

• Action Item – Recommended actions for sunsetting previous GLC Policy Resolutions: The Commission currently has three active resolutions related to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI):

o Resolution - Maintaining Leadership and Sustain Progress in Restoring the Great Lakes and Revitalizing Our Regional Economy (2010)

o Resolution – Extending the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Beyond 2014 (2012) o Resolution – Advancing Phase II of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Passing Comprehensive

Great Lakes Legislation (2013) Pending consideration of the proposed new resolution - Support for Congressional Reauthorization of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (Draft), the Resolutions Review Committee recommends sunsetting the above resolutions and replacing it with the new GLRI resolution.

• Action Item – Recommended action extending a previous GLC Policy Resolution: The Resolutions Review Committee reviewed The Water Energy-Nexus: Linking Water and Energy Planning in the Great Lakes (2009) in its annual review of resolutions ten years old or older. Commissioner discussion included the possibility of updating and expanding the 2009 resolution to include the topic of food in the existing nexus. The Resolutions Review Committee recommends that this resolution remain active and that the Commission commit to discussing and updating the resolution to include food in a future meeting.

• Resolution – Related to the Public Health Risk from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and regional Action to Bolster Collaboration: PFAS have emerged as a pervasive contaminant in all Commission jurisdictions, with increasing public awareness and concern surrounding the existence of these chemicals throughout the environment and the related cleanup efforts. States and Provinces have begun more aggressive regulatory and response efforts in the absence of significant federal action. This resolution would establish intra- and interstate collaboration to address PFAS and would call upon U.S. and Canadian federal governments to increase their respective levels of participation, coordination, and action related to PFAS. Note: the Commission has an active resolution addressing Contaminants of Emerging Concern broadly, including PFAS and others: Addressing Contaminants of Emerging Concern (2017). This resolution is included for reference purposes.

• Resolution – Great Lakes Commission Commitment to Implement Blue Accounting Principles: The Great Lakes Commission initiated Blue Accounting in the 2014 resolution Establishing Blue Accounting: A collaborative re-engineering of Great Lakes information strategy and delivery (included for reference purposes). In 2015, the Commission partnered with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to jointly develop Blue Accounting, which was publicly launched in October 2017. The Commission and TNC have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to guide transition of management and governance of Blue Accounting to the Commission by the end of 2019. This resolution would commit the Commission to serve as the governing and managing agency responsible for Blue Accounting and commit the Commission’s Board of Directors to serve as the Blue Accounting Steering Committee on or before December 31, 2019.

• Resolution – Recognizing the Value of Commercial Shipping on the Illinois Maritime

Transportation System: The Illinois Maritime Transportation System is an important system of navigable inland waterways that provide significant economic impact on the Great Lakes region. It is a critical connection between the Mississippi River and Great Lakes systems, serving as a “western door” to the Great Lakes. This resolution would recognize the economic importance and value of the Illinois Maritime Transportation System and support Illinois’ efforts to strengthen and expand maritime commerce through the Illinois Marine Transportation System.

• Resolution – Acknowledging the Risks of Climate Change and Advancing Regional Resilience: Climate change and its impacts threaten the health and vitality of the Great Lakes Basin, including environmental, economic, and public health. This resolution would commit the Commission to acknowledge the global crisis of climate change and the risks that ongoing climate change poses to Basin and would commit the Commission to work collaboratively on efforts related to resilience and adaptation. It would also call on the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada to acknowledge and take action to address climate change.

• Resolution – Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of Québec’s and Ontario’s Declaration of Partnership with the Great Lakes States and Great Lakes Basin Compact: The Great Lakes are an important, binational natural resource that link the eight U.S. Great Lakes states and two Canadian Great Lakes provinces geographically and economically. Québec and Ontario formalized their relationship with the Great Lakes Basin Compact in 1999 in a Declaration of Partnership signed by all Great Lakes jurisdictions. This resolution would commend the jurisdictions for their 20 years of formal binational partnership and commit to continuing to work together to accomplish the purposes of the Compact.

• CONCEPT Resolution – GLC Officeholder Transition Support, Long-Term Vision, and Compact Recommitment: This resolution would recognize the unique nature of the Great Lakes Basin Compact, create a neutral, nonpartisan guiding document to outline basin-wide governance to newly elected and appointed officials, and recommit the jurisdictions to accomplishing the long-term vision and purposes embodied by the Compact.

• Informational Materials for Meeting with the International Joint Commission:

o International Joint Commission – Background Material o Great Lakes Commission – Background Material

Presented for consideration at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, October 9-11, Quebec City, Quebec.

RESOLUTION DRAFT – Sept. 30, 2019

Support for Congressional Reauthorization of the

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Whereas, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River are national treasures and environmental and economic assets of vital importance to the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, Québec and two nations; and Whereas, benefits from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River continue to be threatened by the release of inadequately treated sewage, invasive species, toxic contaminants, degraded waterfront areas, deteriorating water infrastructure and inadequately maintained ports and harbors; and Whereas, priorities established in 2003 by the governors of the eight Great Lakes states provided the foundation on which the region came together to develop the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes, a comprehensive restoration plan that has been broadly endorsed by the Great Lakes governors, states, cities, industries, tribal governments, federal agencies and environmental organizations; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was initiated in 2009 to strategically target the most critical problems facing the Great Lakes, including

• Toxic substances and Areas of Concern • Invasive species • Nonpoint source pollution impacts on nearshore health • Habitat and species • Foundations for future restoration actions; and

Whereas, the GLRI has established key components for an effective restoration program, including a detailed Action Plan with clear performance goals, an accountability system, and a funding plan that strategically aligns existing programs with those goals; and

Whereas, the Great Lakes region – including states, cities, tribes, business and industry, and nongovernmental groups – have invested significant time and resources to build the capacity to implement the GLRI and translate regional goals into site-specific actions that generate real benefits for local communities; and

Whereas, the Great Lakes states are critical partners in the success of the GLRI with the best knowledge and experience to ensure that resources are targeted at local priorities and several of the Great Lakes states have adopted Great Lakes restoration strategies and plans to complement federal restoration activities in their states; and

Whereas, the GLRI has supported the implementation of more than 4,700 projects across 300,000 square miles, generating significant progress, including completing cleanup work in 11 Areas of Concern, implementing conservation treatments on more than 700,000 acres of farmland and preventing more than 800,000 pounds of phosphorous from polluting the Great Lakes and contributing to harmful algal blooms, opening more than 5,000 miles of rivers to fish passage to improve native fish populations, and funding actions to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species like Asian Carp that threaten the health of these freshwater jewels; and

Whereas, Great Lakes restoration is a wise investment in the region’s economy that is facilitating economic development in waterfront communities across the region, with one rigorous economic analysis projecting that every dollar invested under the GLRI will generate more than three dollars in additional economic activity over the next two decades; and

Whereas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is finalizing a new, five-year GLRI Action plan to guide the program through Fiscal Year 2024 that establishes ambitious goals to sustain restoration progress in the GLRI’s five focus areas; and

Whereas, significant work remains to achieve regional restoration goals for the Great Lakes, including completing cleanup work in 19 remaining U.S. Areas of Concern, achieving phosphorous reduction goals for Lake Erie and implementing conservation actions on ten million acres estimated by U.S. EPA as needing financial assistance, restoring 1.5 million acres of habitat, and preventing the introduction and spread of harmful invasive species; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Basin’s states and communities are prepared to begin planning and investing in the future of stewardship, development and continued conservation of the Basin after its successful restoration; and Whereas, Congress has consistently supported the GLRI with annual appropriations of approximately $300 million, and in 2016 formally authorized the program through Fiscal Year 2021; and Whereas, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has passed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2019, which increases the authorized funding level for the program over five years from $300 million to $475 million per year; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Basin Compact authorizes the Great Lakes Commission to advocate on behalf of the eight Great Lakes states in support of issues of common interest and, using this authority, the Commission has been a leading voice for full funding of the GLRI, and has advised Congress and federal agencies on principles for its implementation in a manner consistent with the views and priorities of the Great Lakes states. Therefore, Be It Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls on Congress to continue funding the GLRI, develop clear shared objectives for GLRI investments, maintain the momentum made to date, build on investments made by the Great Lakes states and other partners, improve the objective accountability for investments in the Great Lakes Basin, and facilitate the long-term success of regional restoration efforts; and

Be It Further Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls on Congress to reauthorize the GLRI through FY 2026 and increase the authorized funding level to the first year’s appropriation of $475 million to provide U.S. EPA, the Great Lakes states, and other parties with the flexibility to address remaining restoration needs, leverage funding from nonfederal partners, and implement priority projects and programs to safeguard the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes; and Be It Finally Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission commends U.S. EPA and the other federal agencies for their dedication and hard work in implementing the GLRI and urges continued collaboration with the Great Lakes states to sustain its accountability and effectiveness, including planning for future needs and post-restoration investments.

Adopted Oct. 8, 2010

Resolution: Maintaining Leadership and Sustaining Progress in Restoring the Great

Lakes and Revitalizing Our Regional Economy

Whereas, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River are national treasures and environmental and economic assets of vital importance to the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, Québec and two nations; and Whereas, 45 million Americans and Canadians depend on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River for drinking water, recreation, fish and wildlife resources, power generation and commercial navigation, among other benefits; and Whereas, benefits from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River continue to be threatened by the release of untreated sewage, invasive species, toxic contaminants, deteriorating water infrastructure, inadequately maintained ports and harbors, and declining water levels due to climate change and other causes; and Whereas, priorities established in 2003 by the governors of the eight Great Lakes states provided the foundation on which the region came together to develop the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes, a comprehensive restoration plan that has been broadly endorsed by the Great Lakes governors, states, cities, industries, tribal governments, federal agencies and environmental organizations; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Governors, in close collaboration with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Healing Our Water-Great Lakes Coalition, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, Council of Great Lakes Industries, Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition and a diverse array of other stakeholders have maintained a consistent and united regional voice calling for a robust federal-state partnership to implement the Great Lakes restoration strategy; and Whereas, with leadership from the president, U.S. EPA and bipartisan support from Congress, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was initiated in 2009 as a five-year program with a budget of $2.2 billion designed to strategically target the most critical problems facing the Great Lakes, including

Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern Invasive Species Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships; and

Whereas, the GLRI advances the key federal policy goal of maximizing the benefits of the Great Lakes and investing in freshwater resources that will be central to the future of our nations and the Great Lakes region; and Whereas, the GLRI has established key components for an effective, five-year restoration program, including a detailed Action Plan with clear performance goals, an accountability system, an independent scientific review panel, and a funding plan that strategically aligns existing programs with those goals; and

Resolution proposed to be rescinded

Adopted at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, Toronto, Ont., Oct. 7-8, 2010.

Whereas, the Great Lakes states have stepped forward to partner with the federal government to implement the GLRI by building capacity, translating the Initiative’s regional goals into site-specific actions, and providing the infrastructure needed to generate meaningful benefits for citizens in the Great Lakes region; and Whereas; an unprecedented investment of time, human capital and scarce fiscal resources—at all levels of government—have launched the GLRI and put it on a trajectory to success; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Basin Compact authorizes the Great Lakes Commission to advocate on behalf of the eight Great Lakes states in support of issues of common interest and, using this authority, the Commission has been a leading voice for full funding of the GLRI, and has advised Congress and federal agencies on principles for its implementation in a manner consistent with the views and priorities of the Great Lakes states. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on Congress and the Administration to maintain their commitment to restoring the Great Lakes by approving legislation that will authorize sustained funding for the GLRI to build on past investments and ensure continued progress in environmental restoration and economic revitalization; and Be it further resolved, that the Commission calls on its member states, together with local governments, business, academia and nongovernmental partners to continue their engagement in implementing the GLRI; and Be it further resolved, that the Commission urges the region’s new and continuing political leaders—whether governors, state legislators, or members of the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation—to keep faith with their citizens who treasure the Great Lakes and have committed to restoring and conserving them as a source of cultural identity and economic prosperity; Be it finally resolved, that the Commission reaffirms its mission and responsibility—as codified in federal and state law—to help its member states and provinces speak with a unified voice and collectively fulfill their vision for a healthy, vibrant Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region by advising the federal governments of the importance of full funding for the GLRI and other programs critical for Great Lakes protection and restoration.


Adopted Sept. 11, 2012

Resolution: Extending the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Beyond 2014

Whereas, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River are national treasures and environmental and economic assets of vital importance to the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, Québec and two nations; and Whereas, benefits from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River continue to be threatened by the release of inadequately treated sewage, invasive species, toxic contaminants, deteriorating water infrastructure and inadequately maintained ports and harbors; and Whereas, priorities established in 2003 by the governors of the eight Great Lakes states provided the foundation on which the region came together to develop the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes, a comprehensive restoration plan that has been broadly endorsed by the Great Lakes governors, states, cities, industries, tribal governments, federal agencies and environmental organizations; and Whereas, with leadership from the President and bipartisan support from Congress, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was initiated in 2009 as a five-year program with a budget of $2.2 billion designed to strategically target the most critical problems facing the Great Lakes, including

Toxic substances and Areas of Concern

Invasive species

Nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution

Habitat and wildlife protection and restoration

Accountability, education, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnerships; and Whereas, the GLRI has established key components for an effective restoration program, including a detailed Action Plan with clear performance goals, an accountability system, and a funding plan that strategically aligns existing programs with those goals; and

Whereas, the Great Lakes region – including states, cities, tribes, business and industry, and nongovernmental groups – have invested significant time and resources to build the capacity to implement the GLRI and translate regional goals into site-specific actions that generate real benefits for local communities; and

Whereas, the Great Lakes states are critical partners in the success of the GLRI with the best knowledge and experience to ensure that resources are targeted at local priorities and several of the Great Lakes states have adopted Great Lakes restoration strategies and plans to complement federal restoration activities in their states; and

Whereas, in July 2012 the Great Lakes Commission presented to U.S. EPA several recommendations based on states’ experiences to improve the effectiveness of the GLRI, and these recommendations include maintaining close coordination and consultation with states; maintaining noncompetitive funding to support state engagement; using a block grant or broad workplan approach to enable large-scale, multi-year grants; and streamlining the RFP, proposal review and quality assurance plan processes; and


Adopted at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, Cleveland, Ohio, September 10-11, 2012.

Whereas, funding provided by Congress to date for the GLRI has been below the amount requested by the President and below the amount originally budgeted ($2.2 billion); and

Whereas, the Great Lakes face significant and costly restoration needs, as documented in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes, which formed the basis for the GLRI and which identified a need for over $20 billion in restoration funding (including investments in wastewater infrastructure); and

Whereas, funding for Great Lakes restoration is a wise investment in the region’s economy that is already generating results and is projected to yield over $50 billion in long-term economic benefits if fully implemented; and

Whereas, ecosystem outcomes from the restoration program likely will not become fully apparent for some years after its implementation; and

Whereas, these and other factors underscore the complexity of implementing a large-scale ecosystem restoration program that utilizes sound science and draws on the full array of programs, authorities and implementation capabilities among federal and state agencies, local jurisdictions and regional organizations. Therefore, Be It Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls on Congress to continue funding for the GLRI beyond 2014 to maintain the momentum underway, build on investments made by the Great Lakes states and other partners, and to facilitate the long-term success of the regional restoration program; and

Be It Further Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls on U.S. EPA to develop an extended timeframe for the GLRI that incorporates a careful assessment of the program and modifications to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, including recommendations from the Science Advisory Board report on the GLRI Action Plan and recommendations submitted by the Great Lakes Commission in July 2012, and that this be done in close consultation with the Great Lakes states, the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation, and other regional partners; and Be It Finally Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission commends U.S. EPA and the other federal agencies for their dedication and hard work in implementing the GLRI and urges continued collaboration with the Great Lakes states to sustain its effectiveness.


Adopted March 6, 2013

Advancing Phase II of the Great Lakes Restoration

Initiative and Passing Comprehensive Great Lakes Legislation

Whereas, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was initiated in 2009 as a five-year, $2.2 billion program to implement a comprehensive restoration plan that addresses priorities established by the governors of the eight Great Lakes states and targets the most critical problems facing the Great Lakes, including

Toxic substances and Areas of Concern

Invasive species

Nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution

Habitat and wildlife protection and restoration

Accountability, education, monitoring, evaluation, communication and partnerships; and Whereas, the GLRI has established key components for an effective restoration program, including a detailed Action Plan with clear performance goals, an accountability system, and a funding plan that strategically aligns existing programs with those goals; and Whereas, the Great Lakes region – including states, cities, tribes, business and industry, and nongovernmental groups – have invested significant time and resources to build the capacity to implement the GLRI and translate regional goals into site-specific actions that generate real benefits for local communities; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission has presented recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the GLRI based on states’ experiences and an independent Science Advisory Board Review Panel has evaluated the GLRI Action Plan and provided advice to guide future decisions; and Whereas, funding provided by Congress to date for the GLRI has been below the amount originally projected to ensure its completion ($2.2 billion); and Whereas, ecosystem outcomes from the restoration program likely will not become fully apparent for some years after its implementation; and Whereas, these and other factors underscore the complexity of implementing a large-scale ecosystem restoration program that utilizes sound science and draws on the full array of programs, authorities and implementation capabilities among federal and state agencies, local jurisdictions and regional organizations; and Whereas, congressional action is needed to formally authorize the GLRI and reauthorize several vital existing Great Lakes programs and strengthen coordination with regional stakeholders and binational cooperation with Canada; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act (GLEPA), comprehensive, bipartisan Great Lakes legislation first introduced in 2012 by the co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, is expected to be reintroduced in the 113th Congress and will formally authorize the GLRI and the Federal Interagency Task Force, reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act, establish a Great Lakes Advisory Board, and call for implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.


Adopted at the 2013 Semiannual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, Washington, D.C., March 5-6.

Therefore, be It Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on U.S. EPA, along with other federal agencies, to lead development of an extended timeframe for a second phase of the GLRI that incorporates a careful assessment of the program, the development of specific environmental outcomes and metrics to measure progress toward those outcomes, and modifications to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, including consideration of recommendations from the Great Lakes Commission, the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, the International Joint Commission, and other partners, and that this be done in close consultation with the Great Lakes states, the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation, and other regional partners; and Be It Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on Congress, with leadership from the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation, to pass comprehensive Great Lakes protection legislation to improve the efficiency of the GLRI, strengthen Great Lakes programs, and facilitate effective long-term management and conservation of the lakes; and Be it Finally Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on U.S. EPA to use existing advisory bodies, wherever possible, and avoid unnecessary committees, boards and related structures.


1300 Victors Way, Suite 1350 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108-5203

Office 734-971-9135 ▪ [email protected]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Darren J. Nichols

MEMORANDUM To: Great Lakes Commissioners

From: Victoria Pebbles, Program Director

Re: Great Lakes Energy Water Nexus Resolution

Date: September 27, 2019

Pursuant to the Great Lakes Commission’s policies and procedures, decadal review of Commission resolutions calls that the resolution be either sunsetted or updated. On September 5, 2019 Commissioners Tim Bruno (PA) Jen Shultz (MN), Loren Wobig (IL), and Alternate Commissioner Steve Galarneau (WI) convened along with Cynthia Frazzini [representing Commissioner Mary Mertz (OH)] to discuss the 2009 resolution: The Water Energy-Nexus: Linking Water and Energy Planning in the Great Lakes. Commission staff, Tom Crane, Deputy Director, and Victoria Pebbles, Program Director, were also on the call. Commissioners discussed the possibility of updating the 2009 resolution with an added element of “food” or “agriculture” so that the resolution would encompass the nexus among food, energy and water. Commissioners generally agreed that these issues are strongly connected and have implications for the Great Lakes. However, Commissioners but wanted more time to consider relevant Commission and other work on the topic in order to develop a meaningful updated resolution. Specifically, Commissioners wanted to know about:

• Findings and recommendations from the GLC-led Great Lakes Water-Energy Nexus Initiative completed in 2011;

• Findings and recommendations from an Ohio State University-led and NSF-funded project entitled Impacts of Deglobalization on the Sustainability of Regional Food, Energy, Water Systems; and

• Other relevant documents/literature on the topic. Action 1: Retain the 2009 resolution: The Water Energy-Nexus: Linking Water and Energy Planning in the Great Lakes until the Commission consider a new or updated resolution on the topic. Action 2: Commissioners with an interest in working on an updated resolution addressing energy-water nexus and/or the food-energy-water nexus are invited to contact Victoria Pebbles by Friday, November 1, 2019. Staff will coordinate Commissioner engagement in crafting a new/updates resolution to be presented at the spring 2020 Great Lakes Commission meeting.

mailto:[email protected]


https://www.glc.org/library/2011-great-lakes-energy-water-nexus

https://www.glc.org/library/2011-great-lakes-energy-water-nexus



EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Darren J. Nichols

MEMORANDUM To: Great Lakes Commissioners

From: Victoria Pebbles, Program Director

Re: Great Lakes Energy Water Nexus Resolution

Date: September 12, 2019

This memo provides additional background information requested by Commissioners to inform consideration of an updated resolution on the Energy‐Water Nexus. This additional information was requested when a sub‐group of Commissioners convened in September 2019 to consider updating or sunsetting the 2009 resolution: The Water Energy‐Nexus: Linking Water and Energy Planning in the Great Lakes. The following background resources are offered to inform Commissioner consideration of a new or updated resolution on the energy‐water nexus, or the food‐energy‐water nexus

Findings and recommendations from the GLC‐led Great Lakes Water‐Energy Nexus Initiative completed in 2011. Findings and recommendations are in two forms, both titled Integrating Energy and Water Resources Decision Making in the Great Lakes Basin: An Examination of Future Power Generation Scenarios and Water Resource Impacts:

o GLEW Synthesis Report; and o Final GLEW Webinar

Findings and recommendations from an Ohio State University‐led and NSF‐funded project entitled Impacts of Deglobalization on the Sustainability of Regional Food, Energy, Water Systems; and The project, known as DR‐ FEWS, aims to examine the potential effects of deglobalization on the sustainability of regional food‐energy‐water systems (FEWS) through development of a new integrated modeling framework that accounts for individual land use and management decisions, regional demands for land, energy and water resources, and water quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The intent is to apply the model to a five‐state Great Lakes region: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin and evaluate the implications of varying future deglobalization scenarios and policies for regional FEWS sustainability and societal well‐being. Alternate Commissioner Steve Galarneau and Program Director Victoria Pebbles both sit on the DR‐FEWS Advisory Committee. The project is expected to conclude in August 2020.

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Food‐Energy‐Water Nexus. Frontiers in Environmental Science. Volume 7, Article 7. February 2019.

Victoria Pebbles. 2016. University of Michigan guest lecture on the Food, Energy, Water Nexus.


Resolution: The Water Energy-Nexus: Linking Water and Energy Planning

in the Great Lakes

Whereas, water and energy are inextricably linked; and Whereas, ensuring clean safe water requires large amounts of energy to supply, purify, distribute, and treat water and wastewater; and Whereas, approximately 80 percent of municipal costs associated with water processing and distribution are for the energy (electricity) alone; and Whereas, supplying energy requires large amounts of water and impacts Great Lakes water quality, water quantity and water-dependent natural resources; Whereas, thermoelectric power plants that burn fossil fuels (e.g., coal, natural gas or petroleum) are the largest source of energy in the Great Lakes, which represented 70 percent of the region’s electric supply in 2006; and accounted for nearly 75 percent of all water use in the Great Lakes basin in 2004, excluding hydropower; and Whereas, electricity is expected to meet a large portion of the region’s anticipated additional power generation in light of projected long-term demographic shifts and economic growth coupled with the threat of global climate change and mounting pressure for greater U.S. energy security; and Whereas, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region’s vast supply of freshwater makes it particularly attractive for water-intensive energy production and potentially competing demands on Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River water resources; and Whereas, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact require new and existing water withdrawals to demonstrate efficient use of water resources; and Whereas, energy planning and water planning are currently done separately, compromising the region’s ability to effectively evaluate and plan for future water and energy needs. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission supports the establishment of new protocols and management models that engage water resources management and energy generation in consultative planning processes; and Be it further resolved, that Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River state and provincial water resource planning agencies should be consulted early in the planning process to evaluate and make recommendations concerning water use by the energy sector (including, fossil-fuel fired power, nuclear, refining and biofuels plants) to achieve water efficiencies and conservation objectives as envisioned by the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact; and

Resolution to be retained

Adopted at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, Erie, Pa., Sept. 29-30, 2009.

Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on federal agencies in the United States and Canada, including the U.S. EPA, Department of Interior (USGS) the U.S. Department of Energy, and Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to collaborate with each other and consult with the Great Lakes states and provinces concerning energy and water policies; and Be it finally resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission stands ready to help position the region as a global center for clean water, renewable energy and energy efficient technologies.

Resolution to be retained


1 of 2

RESOLUTION DRAFT – Oct. 1, 2019

Related to the Public Health Risk from Per- and

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Regional Action to Bolster Collaboration

Whereas, all Great Lakes residents deserve access to safe drinking water and clean natural resources; and Whereas, millions of Great Lakes residents rely on public water systems that draw from surface and ground water, and private wells for access to safe, clean drinking water; and Whereas, PFAS represent a class of thousands of human-made chemicals which are not naturally found in the environment, easily transfer through soil to groundwater, persist indefinitely, and have been shown to be harmful to human health; and Whereas, PFAS have been detected throughout the Great Lakes Region including in the drinking, ground, and surface water and the tissue and blood of fish and wildlife; and Whereas, nationwide studies show measurable levels of PFAS in 98 percent of the US population; and Whereas, exposure to certain PFAS in the environment can lead to adverse human health effects including thyroid disease, decreased fertility, complications in pregnancy, low birth weights, decreased immune response, increased cholesterol, and cancer; and Whereas, the absence of federal enforceable regulatory standards, including drinking water standards relating to PFAS contamination demands an immediate, proactive, and unified response from the executive, state agencies, and the legislature to protect public health and state natural resources; and Whereas, a collaborative approach is needed to assess potential hazards, share data, identify best practices, establish uniform enforceable standards, and leverage funding sources. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls for the member states and provinces to bolster intra- and interstate collaboration and partnership to address the emerging risks posed by PFAS, by taking action to accomplish the following:

I. Foster collaboration with municipalities and wastewater treatment plants on screening programs to identify potential sources of PFAS into the environment;

II. Expand monitoring and consideration of PFAS in the development of fish and other wildlife consumption advisories to protect human health;

III. Explore regulatory standards that are developed to protect public health and the environment from PFAS contamination;

IV. Discuss mechanisms to effectively inform, educate, and engage the public about PFAS;

2 of 2

V. Collaborate regionally to identify and prioritize likely known PFAS sources and incorporate this information into the PFAS action plan;

VI. Support ongoing evaluation of public health risks of PFAS in addition to any impacts to the Great Lakes natural resources, agriculture, wildlife, and fisheries;

VII. Promote the developments best practices and protocols for identifying PFAS sources to ensure that the materials are managed in a way that protects natural resources and human health.

VIII. Encourage partnership with stakeholders, develop standard testing and treatment protocols that are both cost-efficient and effective;

IX. Engage academic institutions and experts to identify and collaborate on joint projects, and further identify technical resources necessary to implement a PFAS action plan;

X. Explore avenues of funding for the regional entities, state and provincial governments, local governments, and private parties to aid their effort to address PFAS.

Be it Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to expeditiously implement their PFAS Action Plan and engage in binational collaboration with Environment Canada and Canadians Provinces to include them in their efforts to share information and build stronger partnership on this issue; and Be It Finally Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on the federal governments of the United States and Canada to expedite risk communications, site assessments, remediation, treatment and prevention of PFAS contamination, and assume costs associated with these efforts for contamination that arises on and from federal properties.

1 of 2

RESOLUTION

Adopted September 20, 2017

Addressing Contaminants of Emerging Concern

in the Great Lakes Basin Whereas, the waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River provide a multitude of ecological, social and economic benefits for approximately 40 million Canadian and U.S. residents; and Whereas, the term “Contaminants of Emerging Concern” (CECs) refers to a wide variety of compounds that are present in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river basin1 that are not widely or consistently regulated, such as Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) pharmaceuticals, 1,4-Dioxane, and microplastic; and Whereas, PBDEs are used as flame retardants in many common consumer products, PFCs are used as firefighting foams and in non-stick cookware, pharmaceuticals typically enter waterways via improper disposal of unused medicines and excretion into waste streams, 1,4-Dioxane is found in a variety of products from paint strippers and varnishes, to deodorant and shampoo, and microplastics in the environment are derived from a myriad of sources including pellets from the manufacturing industry, microfibers shed from clothing, and as a component of commercial and recreational waste streams; and Whereas, the lack of a standard definition for CECs across international boundaries and an inconsistent regulatory environment at the state, provincial, and federal levels creates difficulty in addressing the threat that they pose; and Whereas, there is a high level of uncertainty regarding the potential human health and ecological risks associated with both known CECs and CECs that are yet-unidentified but may be present in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river basin; and Whereas, wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. and Canada discharge 4.8 billion gallons of treated effluent into the Great Lakes basin every day, and these wastewater treatment plants are only equipped to remove approximately half2 of the chemicals that have been identified in sewage; and Whereas, some CECs, including PBDEs and some PFCs (PFOA and PFOS), are considered Chemicals of Mutual Concern (CMCs) under Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) while others, such as microplastics, various pharmaceuticals, and 1,4-Dioxane, are not part of that effort; and Whereas, CECs come in many forms, and microplastics are an example of a CEC that is present in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river basin that is not found as an aqueous solution, but as tiny solid fragments of larger broken-down materials; and

1 2011. University of Windsor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and International Joint Commission. Chemicals of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes Region. Retrieved from: http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/pdf/ID696.pdf 2 2013. International Joint Commission. More on IJC’s Great Lakes Wastewater Treatment Study Removing Chemicals of Emerging Concern. Retrieved from: http://www.ijc.org/en_/blog/2013/12/11/more_on_IJC_great_lakes_wastewater_treatment_study_cecs/

Existing resolution - for reference purposes only

Adopted at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, September 19-20, 2017 in Duluth, Minnesota.

The resolution was passed unanimously.

2 of 2

Whereas, while multiple discrete efforts are underway to better understand and address the impacts of some individual CECs, an effort to look more holistically at CECs and their cumulative risks to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river basin economy and environment would inform the Great Lakes Commission’s ability to respond appropriately on the issue of CECs. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) recognizes that advancing the understanding of the harmful impacts of CECs and taking precautionary steps to impede their further introduction, spread, and accumulation via all known pathways is critical to protecting the economic and ecological well-being of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region; and Therefore, be it resolved, that the GLC supports using a science-based process to assess risks and to develop binational strategies to take action on CECs that have been listed as CMCs under Annex 3 of the GLWQA, and calls for the expansion of this list to include pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and 1,4-Dioxane; and Therefore, be it resolved, that the GLC applauds the federal actions of the U.S. and Canadian governments geared towards banning the use of microbeads in rinse-off cosmetic products, and urges the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada to implement the recommendation put forth by the International Joint Commission (IJC) to develop a binational plan to prevent microplastics from other known sources from entering the Great Lakes using a combination of science and research, policy, market-based instruments, and education and outreach; and Therefore, be it finally resolved, that the GLC requests that government agencies as well as research institutions: 1) assess whether existing plans, programs and policies are adequate to identify and mitigate the risks posed by CECs and protect the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin and its residents from those risks; and 2) recommend additional efforts including targeted areas of research and the development of policies, technologies, and safer alternative compounds that might be needed to address current and future CECs in the Great Lakes basin.

Existing resolution - for reference purposes only

Presented for adoption at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, October 9-11, in Quebec City, QC.

RESOLUTION DRAFT – September 30, 2019

Great Lakes Commission

Commitment to Implement Blue Accounting Principles

Whereas, the Great Lakes Basin Compact established the Great Lakes Commission, an interstate compact agency, to “promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin”; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Basin Compact further calls on the Great Lakes Commission to “collect, correlate, interpret and report on data relating to the water resources of the GL Basin” (Article VI, Section A); and Whereas, the GLC was the founder of and manager of the Great Lakes Information Network (“GLIN”) that began in the early 1990s and served for more than two decades as a Great Lakes regional information hub; and Whereas, the collectively recognized need for a coordinated system of data, information and knowledge to support Great Lakes water resource management decisions was the catalyst for Blue Accounting as first articulated in the 2014 report: “Great Lakes Blue Accounting: Empowering Decisions to Realize Regional Water Values”; and Whereas, in 2014 the Great Lakes Commission initiated Blue Accounting through its 2014 resolution “Establishing Blue Accounting: A collaborative re-engineering of Great Lakes information strategy and delivery” which called on “regional collaborators and funders to help by openly sharing data in order to lead to smarter information systems and knowledge to support decisions by individuals, governments and corporations to correct mistakes, prevent future problems, and maximize the environmental, economic and social benefits that our water resources provide” and Whereas, since May 1, 2015 the GLC and The Nature Conservancy have been working jointly to develop Blue Accounting to provide cutting-edge information services about the Great Lakes previously unavailable in one place; and Whereas, Blue Accounting via blueaccounting.org was publicly launched October 2017 at the Leadership Summit of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers as a resource to support Great Lakes communities and help Great Lakes leaders collaboratively, effectively and holistically steward the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem; and Whereas, Blue Accounting has engaged regional groups to set consensus-based goals and measure progress on five key Great Lakes issues: aquatic invasive species; coastal wetlands; maritime transportation; phosphorus reductions; and source water protection; and Whereas, The GLC and The Nature Conservancy have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to guide transition of management and governance of Blue Accounting to the Great Lakes Commission by the end of 2019; and

http://www.blueaccounting.org/


Whereas, the principles of Blue Accounting as stated in the 2019-2023 Blue Accounting Business Plan are: • Outcome-based and goal-driven • Issue-based • Metric and data-informed • Decision-enabling • Collaborative • Adaptive; and

Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission is empowered by the Great Lakes Basin Compact and is uniquely suited to manage and govern the Blue Accounting initiative and establish the initiative as an essential asset of the Great Lakes community that delivers timely relevant and reliable information that can enable strategic investments to achieve priority Great Lakes water resource outcomes. Therefore, Be It Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission will serve as the governing and managing agency responsible for hosting and implementing Blue Accounting; and Be it Further Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission will collaborate with partners to continue to implement Blue Accounting, guided by the Business Plan; and Be It Further Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls again on regional partners and funders to help by collaborating to openly share data and information to enhance the Basin’s collective ability and accountability to measure progress toward achieving shared goals; and Be It Finally Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission’s Board of Directors agrees to serve as, or to appoint a committee of its membership on or before December 31, 2019 to serve as the recognized decision making body and to work with the Blue Accounting Advisory Committee to implement Blue Accounting and its Principles as an integral component of collaborative decision making across the Great Lakes Basin and within the Great Lakes Commission in its implementation of the Great Lakes Basin Compact.


Establishing Blue Accounting: A collaborative re-engineering of Great Lakes information

strategy and delivery

Whereas, the water resources of the Great Lakes region support a vibrant economy, exceptional ecosystem and rich quality of life; and Whereas, for the region to continue to realize its competitive edge in North America and globally, the true value of water must be realized – and then sustained – through strategic investments to achieve priority water resource outcomes; and Whereas, strategic development and delivery of information and knowledge will play a key role in our understanding and claiming of regional water values; and Whereas, for decades we have monitored aspects of the Great Lakes water system itself (stream flow, and stream and lake water quality) but we do not have a coordinated system of data, information and knowledge to support decisions; and Whereas, critical concepts and technologies supporting the linkage between information systems and decisionmaking across large regions have also been developing in the Great Lakes region, including the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Framework, Great Lakes Observing System and the Great Lakes Information Management and Delivery System; and Whereas, better accounting of our municipal water resources could have provided vital information to anticipate or prevent and, subsequently, assist with response efforts related to the recent drinking water crisis in Toledo, Ohio (Aug. 2-4, 2014) caused by the toxin microcystin breaching water intakes due to the persistence of harmful algal blooms in western Lake Erie; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission is charged by the region’s governors and premiers to “promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes basin” and created and manages the Great Lakes Information Network, the only online clearinghouse of its kind serving the region; and Whereas, in 2013 the Great Lakes governors and premier of Ontario charged the Great Lakes Commission to provide recommendations on a comprehensive and effective vision for regional water monitoring and reporting; and Whereas, with guidance from a collaborative workgroup, the Great Lakes Commission provided this vision in the report, Great Lakes Blue Accounting: Empowering Decisions to Realize Regional Water Values, in March 2014; and Whereas, the Blue Accounting report lays out a strategy for revolutionizing the way information about water resources is designed, organized, managed, delivered, financed and governed in the Great Lakes region; and

For reference only; resolution to be retained

Adopted at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, Sept. 30 in Buffalo, N.Y.

Whereas, the Blue Accounting vision provides a tactical opportunity to re-engineer GLIN, both strategically and structurally, and enhance its capacity as the information hub for the entire Great Lakes community; and Whereas, the governors and premiers provided enthusiastic feedback to the Blue Accounting plan in April 2014 and encouraged the Great Lakes Commission and its collaborators to move forward with its implementation. Therefore, Be It Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission will collaborate with partners to begin refining and implementing the Blue Accounting framework including acquiring additional resources in-house and with partners; and Be it Further Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission will help to catalyze implementation of the Blue Accounting initiative, redesign of GLIN, and establishment of a progressive framework for greatly improved orderly, integrated and comprehensive information systems in support of basin-level water resources management; and Be It Further Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls on regional information providers to join with the Commission in helping to clarify and harmonize the roles of the primary, regional data/information portals; and Be It Further Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission urges partners to work collaboratively to conduct one or more pilots of the Blue Accounting framework; one around municipal water services (safe drinking water, runoff and waste treatment) and that factors leading to the Toledo water crisis be used to guide planning in the development of the pilot; and others within the desired outcomes of healthy aquatic ecosystems; and Be it Finally Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls on regional collaborators and funders to help by openly sharing data in order to lead to smarter information systems and knowledge to support decisions by individuals, governments and corporations to correct mistakes, prevent future problems, and maximize the environmental, economic and social benefits that our water resources provide.

For reference only; resolution to be retained


RESOLUTION DRAFT – Sept. 30, 2019

Recognizing the Value of Commercial Shipping on the Illinois Maritime Transportation System

Whereas, the Illinois Maritime Transportation System encompasses 1,118 miles of navigable inland waterways, 27 lock and dam facilities, 19 Public Port Districts, and more than 350 private terminals; and Whereas, this waterway system provides the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway states and provinces with connections to Illinois River ports, Mississippi River ports, and the Gulf of Mexico, and provides the mid-section of the nation with connections to Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway ports and the Atlantic Ocean (through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway); and Whereas, maritime transportation offers significant economic and environmental advantages, with one, 15-barge tow equivalent to 216 rail cars and 1,050 tractor-trailers, and one gallon of fuel able to move a ton of cargo 616 miles by water, versus 478 miles by rail and 150 miles by truck; and Whereas, the U.S. Department of Transportation predicts that during the next three decades, national and global population growth will significantly increase the volume of containerized cargo and truck freight that will need to move throughout the U.S.; and Whereas, new transportation options, including container on barge (COB) and container on vessel (COV) services, may maximize the inland waterway’s underutilized capacity while taking advantage of the expanded Panama Canal; and Whereas, new marine vessels under development present the potential to change dramatically the economics of containerized shipping along the inland waterway system as a container on vessel approach, with single COV vessels able to carry up to 2,500 containers; and Whereas, current proposals envision transporting containers with high-value dry goods and products upriver and into the Great Lakes and a mixture of containers containing agricultural products or dry goods and commodities, as well as empty containers, back to the mid-section of the nation and/or the Gulf of Mexico, offering a new modal alternative and new paradigm for shippers to work more closely with marine transportation to more profitably access global markets while being cognizant of aquatic invasive species challenges and deterrent technology impacts; and Whereas, water transport is safer, on a million-ton-mile basis there are 21.9 rail fatalities and 79.3 truck fatalities for every one fatality on the waterways system. Therefore, Be It Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission recognizes the economic importance and potential expanded value of the Illinois Maritime Transportation System to the Great Lakes Basin and both the U.S. and Canadian economies, and recognizes the significance of proposed improvements to the system to the Great Lakes states and provinces; and Be It finally Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission recognizes and supports Illinois’ leadership in studying and recommending improvements to strengthen and expand maritime commerce, including through the Illinois Marine Transportation System Plan currently under development.


1 of 3


Acknowledging the Risks of Climate Change and

Advancing Regional Resilience Whereas, the Great Lakes region is home to 100 million people, sustains a $6 trillion economy, and houses over 84% of North America’s supply of surface freshwater; and Whereas, the economic prosperity and wellbeing of those living in the Great Lakes region is inextricably tied to the health and vitality of our shared waters and natural resources; and Whereas, the scientific consensus presents overwhelming evidence that human-driven climate change, marked by an unusual rate and intensity of change over time, is real and presents significant risks and challenges; the Fourth National Climate Assessment concluded that the past decade was the warmest in recorded history for the United States and the dominant cause is human-produced greenhouse gas emissions;i’ii and Whereas, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), June through August of 2019 was the hottest meteorological summer on record for the Northern Hemisphere, tied with 2016;iii and Whereas, the NOAA’s Climate Resilience Toolkit, as well as the latest interagency National Climate Assessment, project significant temperature growth, with scenarios projecting warming of 5.5-6.5°F (3.1-3.6°C; lower emissions scenario) to 7.5°F-9.5°F (4.2-5.2°C higher emissions scenario) over the next century;iv and Whereas, average annual precipitation has risen over the past few decades and these trends are expected to continue. In particular, the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events throughout the Great Lakes region are projected to increase markedly;v and Whereas, under current emission scenarios and business-as-usual, the fourth National Climate Assessment notes that “climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century;”vi and Whereas, the impacts of climate change, such as increasing heat and flooding, applies additional wear and stress on aging and already deteriorating infrastructure, further reducing the lifespan or performance of our region’s infrastructure, imposing a cost on the public and threatening the economy;vii and Whereas, the Great Lakes region’s energy infrastructure, which remains increasingly important for telecommunications, transportation, and other technological systems, and which underpins the continued success of our regional economy, is at risk due to growing climate instability and more frequent extreme weather events;viii and Whereas, increasing temperatures exacerbate the prevalence of invasive species, pests, and diseases, from emerald ash borer to various bacterial plant diseases, which damage forests, the forestry industry, and crop farmers; and Whereas, warming temperatures and increased frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events will continue to harm the Great Lakes region’s agricultural industry through increased vapor pressure deficit’s (VPD), drying plants and soils, compounded by more severe soil erosion and crop disease;ix and

2 of 3

Whereas, Great Lakes surface temperatures have increased at some of the greatest rates worldwidex, with the most rapid increases occurring in the summer and greatly exceeding air temperature trendsxi, especially in the eastern basin of Lake Superiorxii. Lake surface temperatures could rise by as much as 7°F by 2050 and over 12°F by the end of the 21st centuryxiii; and Whereas, climate change has and will continue to harm wildlife and fisheries throughout the Great Lakes region, exacerbating the pervasiveness of invasive species, algal blooms, and exacerbating changes in the range and distribution of certain species; and Whereas, the Great Lakes ecosystem, its native species and biodiversity, provide important ecological services such as flood control, water purification, and crop pollination; and Whereas, Native and First Nations of the Great Lakes region, the original stewards of this region’s land and water, are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change due to their subsistent, economic and cultural relationship with threatened natural resources; and Whereas, the effects of climate change are not distributed equally, and the impacts of climate change are already being felt disproportionately in communities across the Great Lakes region; frontline communities, such as people of color, and vulnerable populations, such as aging or lower-income individuals, will experience greater impacts;xiv and Whereas, climate change poses significant risks to public health, Increased heat wave intensity and frequency, degraded air and water quality, and increases in vector-borne illnesses all pose substantial risks to public health. Health risks are particularly heightened for vulnerable populations like infants, pregnant women, and older adults, and are predicted to increase already existing disparities in certain health outcomes;xv and Whereas, without resiliency efforts and the deployment of adaptation strategies, ongoing, unabated climate change presents significant concerns regarding the common protection and promotion of the Great Lakes region and its shared waters, natural resources, and economy; and Whereas, holistically addressing climate change and promoting economic growth are not mutually exclusive, and reducing the risks and costs associated with climate change, as well as promoting innovative and new industry, will bolster sustainable economic prosperity; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission, as noted in the founding charter, serves as a convening of American states and Canadian provinces and an intergovernmental agency charged with:

I. Promoting the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin;

II. Planning for the welfare and development of the water resources of the Basin as a whole as well as for those portions of the Basin which may have problems of special concern; and

III. Advising in securing and maintaining a proper balance among industrial, commercial, agricultural, water supply, residential, recreational, and other legitimate uses of the water resources of the Basin; and

Whereas, in accordance with the strategic plan adopted by the Great Lakes Commission in 2017, the Commission seeks to serve as a “binational leader and a trusted voice ensuring the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River support a healthy environment, vibrant economy, and high quality of life for current and future generations.” Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission acknowledges the global crisis of climate change and the risks that ongoing climate change poses to the ecological and economic health of the Great Lakes region, as well as the wellbeing of Great Lakes communities throughout the region, now, and for all future generations; and Be It Further Resolved, in order to address climate change and its impact on the Great Lakes region, the Great Lakes Commission shall:

3 of 3

I. Work with member states and provinces, federal agencies, and regional stakeholders to assess current and

potential economic and social costs associated with current conditions and various future emission and climate scenarios;

II. Create a working group to evaluate how the Great Lakes Commission can advance resilience efforts throughout the region and reduce risks to Great Lakes communities, the regional economy, and our shared natural resources;

III. Incorporate data and analyses related to the various effects of climate change within the Great Lakes Commission’s Blue Accounting Initiative; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River states and provinces to pursue efforts to build collective resilience and deploy adaptation strategies to cope with and reduce risks associated with the current and future impacts of climate change; and Be It Finally Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on the federal governments of the United States and Canada to acknowledge, or continue to acknowledge, the existing threat of climate change and take action to address the various risks posed to the Great Lakes region and beyond.

Sources

U.S. Global Change Research Program: 4th National Climate Assessment

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: November 2014 Report

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit

i https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf ii https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ iii https://www.noaa.gov/news/summer-2019-was-hottest-on-record-for-northern-hemisphere iv https://toolkit.climate.gov/regions/great-lakes#Temperature v https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ vi https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ vii https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/ viii https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/4/ ix https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/10/ x O’Reilly, CM et al. Rapid and highly variable warming of lake surface waters around the globe. Geophys. Res Lett. 42, 10773-

10781(2015) xi Austin, J & Colman, S. A century of temperature variability in Lake Superior. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 2724-2730 (2008). xii Mason, LA et al. Fine-scale spatial variation in ice cover and surface temperature trends across the surface of the Laurentian

Great Lakes. Climatic Change 138, 71-83 (2016). xiii Mackey S. 2012: Great Lakes Nearshore and Coastal Systems. US National Climate Assessment Midwest Technical Input Report.

J. Winkler, J Andresen, J. Hatfield, D. Bidwell, and D. Brown, Eds., Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA), National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, 14.

xiv https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ xv https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/14/

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

https://www.noaa.gov/news/summer-2019-was-hottest-on-record-for-northern-hemisphere

https://toolkit.climate.gov/regions/great-lakes#Temperature


https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/







Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of

Québec’s and Ontario’s Declaration of Partnership with the Great Lakes Commission and the

Great Lakes Basin Compact Whereas, the Great Lakes Basin, including five Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair, the St. Lawrence River, and the natural and man-made interconnections among them, contain one of the world’s greatest freshwater resources; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Basin is a multi-jurisdictional, binational resource that compels cooperative stewardship to protect the health of the ecosystem, economy and communities that thrive in and around the Basin; and Whereas, the Great Lakes states entered into a formal binational agreement under the Great Lakes Basin Compact of 1955 to work together to protect, restore and steward the Basin; and Whereas, the Great Lakes States Compact envisions strong and equal participation from the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and provides an open invitation for the provinces and states to join in binational stewardship of the Great Lakes Basin; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission is the public agency established under the Compact for the purpose of helping the states and provinces to effectively implement the binational agreement and to accomplish the purposes of the Compact; and Whereas, the Compact and the Commission have been established for 64 years; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission is a binational leader and a trusted voice ensuring the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River support a healthy environment, a vibrant economy and a high quality of life for current and future generations; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission represents, advises and assists the party states and provinces by fostering dialogue, developing consensus, facilitating collaboration and speaking with a unified voice to advance collective interests and responsibilities to promote economic prosperity and environmental protection and to achieve a balanced and sustainable use of Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin water resources; and Whereas, the Great Lakes Commissioners are appointed by the eight Great Lakes states the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Québec; Whereas, the Great Lakes states and provinces remain committed to work together in binational cooperation under the terms of the Great Lakes Basin Compact; Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission commends and celebrates 20 years of outstanding cooperation, work and achievement in support of Québec’s participation in the Great Lakes Commission; and

Therefore, Be It Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission commends and celebrates 20 years of outstanding cooperation, work and achievement in support of Ontario’s participation in the Great Lakes Commission; and Therefore, Be It Finally Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission members recognize, celebrate and commit to continuing their work together to accomplish the purposes of the Great Lakes Basin Compact.

International Joint Commission- Background Material

Contents

1. A brief overview of the International Joint Commission (IJC)

2. The IJC Commissioners: Profiles

3. Plan2012 Fact Sheet

4. Plan2014 Fact Sheet

5. Ballast water Regulation Crosswalk

6. IJC Update on Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Water Levels

7. IJC Activities and Transboundary Map (Hard copies will be provided at the meeting)

International Joint Commission: Watching Over our Transboundary Waters from Coast to

Coast

Cooperating on shared waters

Cooperation is vital for the use and management of shared waters along the common boundary of Canada and the United States. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 provides principles for using the waters shared by Canada and the United States. It also created the International Joint Commission (IJC) to help prevent and resolve water-resource and environmental disputes between the two countries through processes that seek the common interests of both. Under the treaty, the federal governments of the United States and Canada must consent to any project that changes the natural levels or flows of boundary waters. Project proponents may make an application and seek IJC approval for the project, or the two governments may reach a separate agreement. The treaty also allows the governments to refer issues of concern along the boundary to the IJC for investigation and report. IJC reports under these references are advisory and not binding on the governments.

Taking a binational approach

The IJC is an autonomous international organization created by treaty. The IJC has six Commissioners. Three are appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and three are appointed by the ministers of the Canadian Cabinet on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Commissioners work to achieve consensus on solutions that are in the best interests of both countries. They are independent and operate without negotiating instructions from their respective governments. The IJC has established more than 20 boards and task forces to help carry out its responsibilities along the boundary from coast to coast. Joint fact-finding is essential to IJC board work as it builds a foundation of sound science for reaching consensus on appropriate actions. Board and task force members are drawn equally from both countries and are expected to work in their personal and professional capacities, not as representatives of an organization or region.

Overseeing efforts to protect water quality

In the Boundary Waters Treaty, Canada and the United States agreed that neither country will pollute boundary waters, and waters that flow across the boundary, to an extent that would cause injury to health or property in the other country. When asked by governments, the International Joint Commission investigates, monitors and recommends actions regarding the quality of water in lakes and rivers along the Canada-United States border. The IJC has water quality responsibilities in the St. Croix River, the Great Lakes, the Rainy River and the Red River.

Reporting on Great Lakes Water Quality

A major responsibility of the IJC is to evaluate progress toward restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. In 1972, the United States and Canada signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and set goals to clean up waste waters from industries and communities. In 1978, the countries signed a new agreement that also committed them to rid the Great Lakes of persistent toxic substances. These substances remain in the environment for a long time and can injure the health of animals and people. Amendments to the 1978 agreement established a process for restoring contaminated Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, and eliminating critical pollutants through Lakewide Management Plans. Every two years, the IJC issues a comprehensive report assessing progress and advising the governments on how to meet the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The agreement established a Great Lakes Regional Office to assist the IJC in this process.

Managing water levels and flows

Changing water levels can affect drinking water intakes, commercial shipping, hydroelectric power generation, agriculture, shoreline property, recreation, fisheries, wildlife, wetlands and other interests. When it approves a project, the IJC sets requirements for managing the flows in order to protect the interests of both countries. Projects approved by the IJC include hydroelectric power projects in the St. Croix River, Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River and Columbia River basins. The IJC also has responsibilities regarding emergency water levels in the Lake of the Woods basin, and water apportionment in the Souris River, St. Mary River and Milk River basins.

Responding to changing needs

Some of the projects approved by the IJC are now more than 80 years old. Over the years, use of the waters has changed, including increased recreational use, and more is known about the watersheds and the environmental impacts of the projects. The IJC is systematically reviewing its requirements for managing water flows through these projects to account for these changes while insuring that the terms of the Boundary Waters Treaty continue to be met. Advising on air quality issues

The United States and Canadian governments have asked the IJC to bring to their attention, or to investigate, air pollution problems in boundary regions. Air pollution can travel thousands of miles and settle on land or in water far away from the source of the pollution. When air pollutants fall on rivers or lakes they can affect the quality of the water. In 1991, the two governments signed the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement and set up an Air Quality Committee to report every two years on progress. The

International Joint Commission has been asked to invite comments on the Committee’s reports from individuals and groups and to prepare a summary report of the views expressed.

The Ecosystem Approach

Every part of an ecosystem — the air and land, the lakes, rivers and streams, plant life, wildlife and humans — depends on the other parts for its own health. No single group or organization in our society can restore health and balance to the ecosystem, so we must all work together to find solutions to problems and to protect the ecosystems in which we live. .org To take an ecosystem approach to its responsibilities, the IJC has begun to combine boards that once had separate responsibilities in various transboundary watersheds. Under the International Watersheds Initiative, the Commission is working to strengthen the capacity of existing boards through,

employing a broader, ecosystem perspective; expanding outreach and cooperation among organizations with local water-

related interests and responsibilities; promoting the development of a common vision for each basin; developing a better understanding of the water-related resources; and creating conditions for the resolution of specific watershed-related issues.

Find out more and become involved The IJC publishes reports on the progress made and the challenges that remain in restoring and protecting the waters along the Canada-U.S. boundary. It also seeks to involve the public in its investigations through public meetings, roundtables, comment periods and other forms of discussion. For more information, Visit our website at www.ijc.org, Contact an IJC office.

Canadian Section Great Lakes Regional Office United States Section

234 Laurier Avenue West 22nd Floor, Ottawa, ON K1P 6K6 Canada Telephone: (613) 995-2984 Fax: (613) 993-5583

100 Ouellette Avenue 8th Floor, Windsor, ON N9A 6T3 Canada Telephone: (519) 257-6700 Fax: (519) 257-6740

1717 H Street NW Suite 835, Washington, DC 20006 U.S.A. Telephone: (202) 736-9000 Fax: (202) 632-2006

IJC Commissioners

Pierre Beland

Canadian Commissioner-Chair

Lance Yohe

United States Commissioner

Merrell Ann-Phare

Canadian Commissioner

Robert Sission

United States Commissioner

Henry Lickers

Canadian Commissioner

Jane Corwin

United States Commissioner-Chair

Pierre Beland, Canadian Chair & Commissioner

Pierre Béland is a scientist in environmental biology and toxicology, best known as an expert on the

conservation of beluga whales. He was a founder and research scientist with the St. Lawrence National

Institute of Ecotoxicology, an NGO dedicated to research and education on toxic compounds in estuarine

ecosystems.

Dr. Béland has published three books, numerous scientific and popular articles, has hosted a TV series on

the environment, and participated in several documentary films. He served for ten years as a

Commissioner for BAPE, the Quebec environmental assessment Board. He has chaired public hearings

for various agencies such as Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Quebec Energy Efficiency

Agency, Telus. Previously he headed the Fisheries Ecology Research Center with the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and was a paleoecologist with the National Museum of Nature. From Sept

1995 to Sept 1998, Dr. Béland was one of three Canadian Commissioners (and Acting Chair) with the

International Joint Commission.

Until recently he owned and managed a company manufacturing equipment for research and management

of aquatic and marine ecosystems. His most recent duties were as a Director of AquaForum, whose

AquaHacking Challenge is a Canada-wide competition for graduate students and innovators aiming to

create start-ups in the field of water technology and the blue economy.

Dr. Béland holds a BA and a BSc from Laval University (Quebec City), and a PhD from Dalhousie

University (Halifax). He was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at ORSTOM Centre, New Caledonia, and at the

University of Queensland, Australia. He resides in Montreal, QC; he is fluent in French and English and

proficient in Mandarin.

Henry Lickers- Canadian Commissioner

Henry Lickers, a Haudenosaunee citizen of the Seneca Nation, Turtle Clan. He has been Director of the

Mohawk Council for 32 years and is now the Environmental Science Officer, for the past six

years. Throughout his career, Mr. Lickers has been instrumental in incorporating First Nation’s people

and knowledge into environmental planning and decision making.

Prior to his appointment as IJC Commissioner, Mr. Lickers was a member of the IJC's current Great

Lakes Science Advisory Board (SAB) since 2014. Mr. Lickers also served as a SAB member from 1987-

91 and 1997-2000. He has been principle investigator on the EAGLE (Effect on Aboriginal in the Great

Lakes Environment) Project and the Naturalized Knowledge Systems Project and the First Nations’

Community Health Indicators Project. Henry has been Director Ontario Professional Foresters

Association, Scientific Co-Chair of The Haudenosaunee Environmental Taskforce, Vice President of the

Board of Directors, St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences and a member of the Board of

Directors for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest.

The recipient of a number of awards recognizing his lifelong service to the St. Lawrence River, and

service to many environmental and government organizations over his career, Mr. Lickers was given an

Honorary Doctor of Science Degree from the State University of New York Syracuse.

He holds a Bachelor of Science (Biology and Geography) and undertook graduate studies at the

University of Waikato in New Zealand, and was a Trent University Ph D. Elder Council member. He

resides in Akwesasne, Ontario.

Merrell-Ann Phare- Canadian Commissioner

Merrell-Ann Phare is a lawyer, writer, strategist, negotiator and relationship-builder who worked

extensively in and with indigenous organizations on environmental, land, water, rights and governance

issues. She, along with 10 First Nation Chiefs, was the founding Executive Director of the Centre for

Indigenous Environmental Resources (CIER), a national First Nation charitable environmental

organisation.

As Chief Negotiator for the Government of the Northwest Territories, Ms. Phare lead the negotiation of

transboundary water agreements in the Mackenzie River Basin and the creation of Thaidene Nene, a

national and territorial park in the east arm of Great Slave Lake.

She is the author of the book “Denying the Source: the Crisis of First Nations Water Rights” and co-

author of “Ethical Water”. She is a member of the Forum for Leadership on Water, Smart Prosperity's

Leadership Council, and is a recipient of Canada's Clean 50 Award. She served as legal counsel and

advisor to a number of First Nation and Metis governments and organizations.

Ms. Phare holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics (Environmental) Bachelor of Laws, Master of Law

(Aboriginal Water Rights and International Trade Law) from the University of Manitoba a Master of Fine

Arts (Creative Writing) from University of British Columbia. She resides in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Jane Corwin – US Commissioner

Jane Corwin served as a member of the New York State Assembly from 2009 through 2016,

where she was the Minority Leader Pro Tempore and the ranking member of the Corporations,

Authorities and Commissions Committee. Additionally, she was a member of the Environmental

Conservation, Education and Mental Health Committees. Ms. Corwin has also served as

president of the Philip M. and Jane Lewis Corwin Foundation since 2005, and was the director of

Gibraltar Industries out of Buffalo from 2014-2018. She succeeds former US Co-Chair Lana

Pollack, who served from 2010 to 2019.

Robert Sission - US Commissioner

Robert Sisson has been involved with the environmental organization ConservAmerica since

2006, where he has served as president since 2011, and more recently was appointed by

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to the state’s Environmental Justice Working Group in 2017.

Mr. Sisson has also been involved in the government of the Michigan city of Sturgis, where he

has served as mayor from 2005-2007 and as a city commissioner from 2003-2008 and again

from 2011-2016. Concurrently, he was a member of the boards of directors for both the Sturgis

Economic Development Corporation and the St. Joseph County Economic Development

Corporation. He succeeds former US Commissioner Dereth Glance, who served from 2011 to

2016.

Lance Yohe- US Commissioner

Lance Yohe has been previously involved in Canada-U.S. transboundary organizations centered

in the Red River basin for over 25 years, serving as the executive director of the Red River Basin

Commission in Fargo, North Dakota from its formation in 2002 until 2014. He was involved

with its two predecessors, the Red River Basin Board and International Coalition for Land and

Water Stewardship. He also served as a manager with the Southeast Cass Water Resources

Board and as a member of the Red River Joint Water Resources Board’s Executive Board of

Managers. In 2014, Mr. Yohe formed Trans Boundary Solutions, a consulting firm working with

regional clients on both sides of the boundary, including the Prairie Improvement Network and

the Assiniboine River Basin Initiative. He succeeds former US Commissioner Rich Moy, who

served from 2011 to 2019.The International Joint Commission prevents and resolves disputes

between the United States of America and Canada under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and

pursues the common good of both countries as an independent and objective advisor to the two

governments. US and Canadian Commissioners work together to play a binational oversight role,

in matters involving water quality and quantity issues on the topics and in the basins where the

governments have requested the IJC’s assistance.

Preserves,Lake,Superior,levels,and,flow,through,the,StU,Marys,River,during,extremely,dry,conditions

Protects,important,Lake,Sturgeon,spawning,habitat,in,the,StU,Marys,River

Economic,benefits,to,navigation,and,hydropowerO,andreduced,costs,to,protect,and,maintain,shoreline,property

More,predictable,flows,and,smaller,monthNtoNmonth,changes,benefit,hydropower,and,StU,Marys,Rapids,interests,

More,natural,StU,Marys,River,flows,help,sustain,riverine,ecosystem,health

Simpler,rules,make,Plan,5435,easier,to,manage

InternationalLakevSuperiorvBoardvofvControl

Duluth

ThunderBay

Sault'SteO'Marie

ParrySound

Sarnia

The'Upper'Great'Lakes'System

Lake,Superior

LakeHuron

St. Marys River

St. Clair

River

MackinawCity

LakevSturgeon

)U99vm4.sMinimumvFlowEveryv*thvJune

NovembervMaximumv=v4W?9vm4.s=exceptvifvSuperiorv>v)84899vm8882

MayRtoRNovembernX&&RmnYs ifRSuperiorR>R4XnH9&Rm

WintervMaxv=vWP)9vm4.sIncreasedvtovW?99vm4.sifvSuperiorv>v)84899vm

BasisvofvPlanvW9)Wvisvthev

It1s'the'flow'that'would'haveoccurred'prior'to'the'canalsand'dam'being'built'in'theStO'Marys'River-'which'beganaround'the'year'2887

6vWhatvisvpre-projectvflow?

4HRStartRwithRmoreRRRRNATURALRFLOWS

DHRRApplyRBALANCINGRRRRRRPRINCIPLE

nHRRespectRPHYSICALRlRRRRROPERATIONALRLIMITS

-HRRDetermineRRAPIDSRFLOWRRRRRRRlRMulticUseRALLOCATIONS

PRE-PROJECT*'FlowSRelationship

ToShelpSBALANCESwaterSlevelS

conditionsSandStheirSimpactsS

onSALLSstakeholders

SUPERIOR MICHIGANcHURON

RRRRRRRRRMUNICIPALRlRINDUSTRIALRUSES

RAPIDSRlRFISHERY

NAVIGATIONRLOCKS

A

A

A

PLANRD&4DRFLOW

lRGATER

SETTINGq

Chicago

RUNOFFEVAPORATION

PRECIPITJTION

A N qNET

BASIN

SUPPLY

LakeMichigan

GreenBay

MarquetteUNITED,STJTES

CJNJDJ

74

64

54

34

4

N34

N54

3,,,,,,,,,5,,,,,,,,,6,,,,,,,,,7,,,,,,,,,8,,,,,,,,,9,,,,,,,,,W,,,,,,,,,B,,,,,,,,,F,,,,,,,,34,,,,,,,,33,,,,,,,,35MONTH

Historical,Range,of,Monthly,Water,Supplies,and,Outflowson,Lake,Superior

Superior,Net,Basin,Supply

StU,Marys,Flow

74

64

54

34

4

N34

N54

3,,,,,,,,,5,,,,,,,,,6,,,,,,,,,7,,,,,,,,,8,,,,,,,,,9,,,,,,,,,W,,,,,,,,,B,,,,,,,,,F,,,,,,,,34,,,,,,,,33,,,,,,,,35MONTH

Historical,Range,of,Monthly,Water,Supplies,and,Outflowson,Lake,MichiganNHuron

MichiganNHuronNet,Basin,Supply

StU,Marys,Flow

StU,Clair,Flow

cm,o

n,L

ake

,Su

pe

rio

rcm

,on

,La

ke,M

ich

iga

nNH

uro

n

Wat

er,L

evel

,Cm

I

Water,levels,go,up,and,down,over,timeU,,These,fluctuations,are,caused,by,variations,in,the,lake=s,inflows,and,outflowsU,,

Over,the,very,longNterm,Cdecades,or,moreIO,on,average,a,lake=s,net,inflow,is,approximately,equal,to,its,outflowU,HoweverO,shorterNterm,monthNtoNmonth,and,yearNtoNyear,variations,in,inflows,and,outflows,cause,water,levels,to,continually,varyU

The,ability,to,control,Lake,Superior=s,outflow,does,not,mean,full,control,of,lake,levels,is,possibleU,,This,is,because,the,major,factors,that,affect,the,water,supply,to,the,Great,Lakes,are,overNlake,precipitationO,runoffO,and,evaporation,Ctogether,known,as,net,basin,supplyIO,and,these,cannot,be,controlledO,nor,can,they,be,accurately,predicted,in,the,long,termU

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,It,is,the,current,regulation,plan,for,Lake,SuperiorU,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,It,provides,a,set,of,rules,used,to,determine,the,amount,of,water,to,release,from,the,lakeU,The,rules,are,designed,to,provide,socioNeconomic,and,environmental,benefitsO,both,upstream,and,downstreamO,while,respecting,specific,physical,and,operational,limitsU

Plan,5435,provides,modest,benefits,over,the,previous,regulation,planO,including(,

Outflow,from,Lake,MichiganNHuron,occurs,by,way,of,the,StU,Clair,RiverU,Unlike,the,StU,Marys,RiverO,the,StU,Clair,is,uncontrolledO,and,its,flow,depends,solely,on,lake,levels,and,physical,characteristics,of,the,river,itselfU,The,StU,Clair,River,flows,to,Lake,StU,Clair,and,through,the,Detroit,River,before,entering,Lake,Erie,and,continuing,on,further,downstreamU

Water,from,Lake,Superior,flows,to,Lake,MichiganNHuron,through,a,number,of,structures,stretching,acrossthe,StU,Marys,River,in,the,twin,cities,of,Sault,SteU,Mariein,Ontario,and,MichiganU,,Regulating,the,release,of,water,and,overseeing,operation,of,the,control,structuresare,the,responsibilities,of,the,International,Lake,SuperiorBoard,of,ControlO,under,the,authority,of,the,InternationalJoint,CommissionU

Lake'MichiganHHuron'Outflows

Water'Level'Variations

Lake'SuperiorOutflows'and'Regulation

What'is'Plan'0V20?

How'Plan'0V20'Works:

More'Info:

Flows'are'adjusted'depending'on'the'difference'of'each'lake1s'level'from'seasonal'target'levels'based'on'average'conditions

182.50

182.75

183.00

183.25

183.50

183.75

184.00

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

175.50

175.75

176.00

176.25

176.50

176.75

177.00

177.25

177.50

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010)999vvv)9)9vvv)9W9vvv)949vvv)9P9vvv)9*9vvv)9?9vvv)9U9vvv)989vvv)999vvvW999vvvW9)9

)UU8*9

)UU8W*

)UU899

)U?8U*

)U?8*9

)U?8W*

)U?899

)U*8U*

)U*8*9

)8P899

)848U*

)848*9

)848W*

)84899

)8W8U*

)8W8*9

MichiganNHuron

Superior

Lakes,Michigan,and,Huron,are,connected,at,the,Straits,of,Mackinacand,considered,one,lake,due,to,their,shared,water,level,

UnitsvvvvmB=BmetresBBBB1BmB=B3.28BfeetB(ft)BBBBBBBBBBBBm3/sB=BcubicBmetresBperBsecond1Bm3/sB=B35.3BcubicBftBperBsecondB(cfs)

InternationalvLakevSuperiorvBoardvofvControl

facebook.com/InternationalLakeSuperiorBoardOfControlwww.ijc.org/en_/ilsbc

INTERNATIONA

LJOI

NTRCO

MMISSIONRRRR COMMISSION MIXTERINTERNATIONALERRRRR3F4F

InternationalvJointvCommission

facebook.com/InternationalJointCommissionwww.ijc.org

LakeSSuperiorREGULATION PLANRD&4D

1

Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Plan 2014: Summary of Benefits and Impacts

In December 2016, the International Joint Commission (IJC) approved Plan 2014, a new plan for managing water levels and flows in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Before the IJC took this action, the Governments of Canada and the United States concurred on amendments to the IJC’s Order of Approval, which specifies conditions and criteria for setting the flow through the Moses-Saunders Dam, located between Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New York. This Fact Sheet summarizes the benefits and impacts of Plan 2014.

A Careful Balancing of Diverse Interests Water levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River are primarily determined by rain, snow, wind and other natural factors. The Moses- Saunders Dam, approved by the International Joint Commission (IJC) in the 1950s, also provides some control over water levels and flows. Regulating levels and flows has provided benefits to various uses and interests by allowing for hydropower production; improving conditions for commercial navigation, recreational boating and water intakes; and reducing the flooding and erosion of shoreline communities. However, the regulation plan that had been in place for more than a half century, Plan 1958D with deviations (Plan 1958DD), has unnaturally compressed water levels and harmed coastal ecosystems on Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River. These impacts were not understood when the project was approved, but it is now widely recognized that ecosystem needs must be considered along with other interests. The IJC has reviewed an extensive range of alternative regulation plans through 16 years of scientific study, public engagement, dialogue with basin governments and careful consideration of all water

uses and affected interests in Canada and the United States. IJC Commissioners have concluded that Plan 2014 allows more natural water levels while minimizing impacts to other interests. For example, compared to 1958DD, the increase in the maximum Lake Ontario level under Plan 2014 is six centimeters (2.4 inches). Affected Interests

Ecosystem Plan 2014 helps restore plant diversity and habitat for fish and wildlife by allowing more natural variability in water levels while continuing to moderate extreme high and low levels. Plan 1958DD has reduced the natural variability in water levels and degraded the health of the remaining 26,000 hectares (64,000 acres) of coastal wetlands on Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River. Fish and wildlife have been adversely impacted because the diverse plant community has been overrun by a monoculture of cattail thickets. The scientific evidence for the harm caused by Plan 1958DD is clear and too strong to ignore.

2

Coastal development Both Plan 2014 and Plan 1958DD protect coastal development from the damage that would occur on Lake Ontario without regulation. Studies show that average annual coastal damages on Lake Ontario would be approximately $46 million under natural conditions, approximately $18 million under Plan 1958DD and approximately $20 million under Plan 2014. These data include impacts to shore protection structures, unprotected shorelines, and buildings on the U.S. and Canadian shoreline of Lake Ontario. While the IJC understands that these impacts are larger in some years than others, the studies provide a sound basis for comparing regulation plans.

Approximately 85 percent of the costs to coastal development under either plan result from investment needed to maintain shore protection structures, typically barriers made from large rocks placed along the shore. Some of these structures are tall, well- made and unlikely to fail. But other structures will be overtopped and destroyed under either plan.

While this is likely to happen under Plan 1958DD, it is likely to happen a little sooner under Plan 2014, because to restore fish and wildlife habitat, Plan 2014 needs to allow for more variability in levels. Plan 2014 and Plan 1958DD are both effective at flood reduction and their performance is similar when water supplies are extremely high. A small portion of the expected coastal damage under either plan (about one percent) is due to flooding. The remaining economic impact is from erosion, which increases by a small amount under Plan 2014.

There is more variability in water levels on the lower St. Lawrence River than on Lake Ontario, in part because of the influence of Ottawa River inflows. The variability and flooding impacts on the lower St. Lawrence River would not change under Plan 2014.

Recreational boating On Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River, Plan 2014 would result in higher autumn levels in two years out of three and lower summer water levels in some years. The net effect is a small negative impact, largely because there are more boaters in the summer than in the fall. Plan 2014 makes a small improvement for recreational boating in the lower St. Lawrence River.

Municipal and industrial water use Plan 2014 would continue to protect against extreme high water levels that flood facilities and extreme low water levels that impact water intakes. The result would be no change in economic benefits to municipal and industrial water and wastewater use. Facilities that experience problems under the present regulation plan would continue to experience problems under Plan 2014. Commercial navigation Overall, Plan 2014 would maintain the same economic benefits to commercial navigation. The frequency of low levels at the Port of Montreal would be about the same. In rare low water years, which have been experienced a couple of times in the last century, some ships traversing Lake Ontario would have to light load. However, in typical years navigation would enjoy small increases in available depths, allowing some ships to carry larger loads more frequently.

Hydropower More natural fluctuations under Plan 2014 would slightly increase energy production at the Ontario Power Generation, New York Power Authority and Hydro-Quebec power plants. The value of the increase is approximately 0.2 percent of the value of hydropower produced at these plants.

MORE INFORMATION See the Plan 2014 website online at www.ijc.org/en_/Plan2014.

http://www.ijc.org/en_/Plan2014

3

Environmental Performance Indicators Ratio to 1958DD

Using historical water supplies

Regulation Plans

Natural 1958DD B+ Bv7 Bv7 2-95

Plan 2014 (Bv7 2-90)

Lake Ontario Meadow Marsh 1.56 1.00 1.44 1.46 1.41 1.40 Spawning habitat supply (Low Veg 18C) 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 Spawning habitat supply (High Veg 24C) 1.08 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 Spawning habitat supply (Low Veg 24C) 1.11 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.04 1.03 Northern Pike YoY recruitment 1.03 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 Largemouth Bass YoY recruitment 0.96 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Least Bittern reproductive index 1.13 1.00 1.04 1.12 1.11 1.09 Virginia Rail reproductive index 1.15 1.00 1.11 1.16 1.15 1.09 Black Tern reproductive index 1.16 1.00 1.12 1.19 1.16 1.11 Yellow Rail preferred breeding habitat 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.02 1.02 King Rail preferred breeding habitat 1.27 1.00 1.10 1.19 1.16 1.14 Upper River Spawning habitat (Low Veg 18C) 1.04 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.01 Spawning habitat (High Veg 24C) 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.00 Spawning habitat (Low Veg 24C) 1.04 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.01 Northern Pike YoY recruitment 1.06 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Largemouth Bass YoY recruitment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Northern Pike YoY net productivity 2.07 1.00 1.46 1.39 1.39 1.39 Virginia Rail (RALI) reproductive index 1.33 1.00 1.27 1.17 1.17 1.19 Muskrat house density, drowned river mouth wetlands

14.29 1.00 2.99 2.59 2.56 2.60

Lower River Golden Shiner - suitable feeding habitat area

1.01 1.00 1.00

See Note

1.00 1.00

Wetlands fish - abundance index 0.97 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 Migratory wildfowl - habitat area 0.94 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.99 Least Bittern reproductive index 1.06 1.00 1.03 1.02 1.02 Virginia Rail reproductive index 1.04 1.00 1.05 1.03 1.02 Migratory wildfowl productivity 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 Black Tern reproductive index 1.01 1.00 0.97 1.01 1.00 Northern Pike reproductive area 1.01 1.00 1.03 1.01 1.01 Eastern Sand Darter reproductive area 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Spiny Softshell Turtle reproductive habitat area

1.01 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.99

Bridle Shiner reproductive habitat area 0.97 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.94 Muskrat surviving houses 1.05 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.96 Shading indicates species at risk Note: Scores above 1.1 and below 0.9 are considered significantly different from Plan 1958DD results. Lower river results for Bv7 are not available; scores for a similar plan ranged from 0.94 (Muskrat) to 1.03 (Virginia Rail and Wetland fish abundance index).

4

Economic Benefits (in $US Million 2005) Net Average Annual

Using stochastic water supplies

Regulation Plans

Natural 1958DD B+ Bv7 Bv7 2-95

Plan 2014 (Bv7 2-90)

Total -$20.80 $0.00 $1.31 $1.61 $3.12 $3.85 Municipal and industrial water use $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

St. Lawrence River one-time infrastructure costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Lake St. Louis water quality investments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Commercial Navigation -$0.05 $0.00 -$1.24 -$0.02 $0.00 $0.00

Ontario -$0.02 $0.00 -$0.01 -$0.01 -$0.01 $0.00 Seaway -$0.02 $0.00 -$1.19 -$0.01 $0.00 $0.00 Montreal -$0.01 $0.00 -$0.04 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01

Hydropower $12.59 $0.00 $6.08 $5.40 $5.26 $5.26 NYPA-OPG $8.77 $0.00 $3.85 $3.45 $3.41 $3.54 Hydro-Quebec $3.82 $0.00 $2.22 $1.95 $1.85 $1.76

Coastal -$29.88 $0.00 -$2.78 -$3.17 -$2.23 -$2.24 Lake Ontario total -$27.38 $0.00 -$2.53 -$3.11 -$2.22 -$2.23

Shore protection maintenance -$19.85 $0.00 -$2.16 -2.62 -$1.94 -$1.95 Erosion to unprotected developed parcels

-$0.58 $0.00 -$0.17 -0.17 -$0.16 -$0.18

Flooding -$6.94 $0.00 -$0.20 -$0.32 -$0.11 -$0.11 Upper St. Lawrence River flooding -$2.00 $0.00 -$0.04 -$0.07 -$0.01 -$0.01 Lower St. Lawrence River flooding -$0.49 $0.00 -$0.22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Recreational Boating -$3.46 $0.00 -$0.74 -$0.60 $0.10 $0.79

Above the dam -$5.31 $0.00 -$1.42 -$1.33 -$0.68 -$0.10 Lake Ontario -$4.93 $0.00 -$1.18 -$1.11 -$0.57 -$0.15 Alexandria Bay -$0.36 $0.00 -$0.29 -$0.25 -$0.14 $0.00 Ogdensburg -$0.07 $0.00 $0.00 -$0.02 -$0.01 $0.00 Lake St. Lawrence $0.05 $0.00 $0.05 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05

Below the dam $1.85 $0.00 $0.68 $0.72 $0.78 $0.90 Lake St. Louis $1.03 $0.00 $0.49 $0.45 $0.48 $0.54 Montreal $0.64 $0.00 $0.19 $0.20 $0.22 $0.26 Lake St. Pierre $0.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.07 $0.08 $0.10

Rev 7/30/2019

Key Elements Transport Canada Current Regulations

Transport Canada Proposed Regulations U.S. Vessel Incidental Discharge Act - Dec 4,

2018 - Title IX of Frank LoBionda USCG

Authorization Act

USEPA - Vessel General Permit (VGP)

2013USCG - Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast

Water, Discharged in U.S. WatersSt. Lawrence Seaway Regulations

Overview

Requires vessels coming to Canada to

manage ballast water

Implements the Convention and certain

national requirements.

Requires EPA to develop national standards of

performance within 2 years and the USCG to

develop implementing regulations 2 years

thereafter.

Requires permit for any direct incidental

discharge of pollutants.

Establishes a U.S. standard for the allowable

concentration of living organisms in ships' ballast water

discharged in U.S. waters. Establishes approval process for

ballast water management systems.

Requirements for clearance to

transit the seaway

Authority

Canada Shipping Act, 2001 Canada Shipping Act, 2001 Clean Water Act Section 312(p) - Uniform

National Standards for Discharges Incidental

to Normal Operation of Vessels

Clean Water Act Section 402 - National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Permit Program

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisnce Prevention and

Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), as ammended by the

National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).

Canada Marine Act and Wiley-

Dondero Act (or Seaway Act) (U.S.)

Jurisdiction

Pertains to operations in waters under

Canadian jurisdiction

Canadian vessels everywhere and in

waters under Canadian jurisdiction (i.e.,

Canadian inland waters; Canadian

internal marine waters, such as the Gulf

of St. Lawrence; the territorial sea of

Canada and Canada’s exclusive

economic zone).

Waters of the United States and waters of the

contiguous zone (the maritime zone adjacent

to the territorial sea extending no more that

24 nautical miles from the baseline).

Waters of the United States (extending

to the outer reach of the 3 mile territorial

sea and including all navigable waters of

the Great Lakes subject to the jurisdiction

of the United States.

Waters of the United States - waters subject to US

jurisdiction including navigable waters, For 33 CFR 151

Subparts C and D relating to ballast water, the navigable

waters include the territorial sea as extended to 12

nautical miles from the baseline. For the Great Lakes -

navigation to the Snell Lock at Massena and upstream

after operating beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ).

Montreal to Lake Ontario - 2 U.S.

and 5 Canadian locksystems,

Welland Canal - 8 Canadian locks,

St. Mary's River - 4 U.S. parallel

locks. See: http://www.greatlakes-

seaway.com/en/seaway/locks/ind

ex.html

Regulated Vessels (for ballast

water)

Canadian vessels and any vessel in waters

under Canadian jurisdiction (except

vessels listed below under "vessels to

which the regulations do not apply").

Canadian vessels and any vessel in

waters under Canadian jurisdiction that

loads or discharges ballast water

(except vessels listed below under

"vessels to which the regulations do not

apply").

"Commercial" vessels generally (officially non-

recreational, non-Armed Forces vessels).

Excludes permanently moored vessels.

"Commercial" vessels generally (officially

non-recreational, non-Armed Forces

vessels). Excludes permanently moored

vessels.

All non-recreational vessels U.S. and Foreign, that are

equipped with ballast tanks that, after operating beyond

the EEZ during any part of the voyage, enter the Snell Lock

at Massena, New York or navigates north of the George

Washington bridge on the Hudson River.

Compliance with ballast water

requirements is a condition of

transit for all commercial vessels

after having operated outside the

EEZ

Ships to which the regulations

do not apply

Vessels that operate exclusively in waters

under Canadian jurisdiction;

vessels that operate exclusively in waters

under Canadian jurisdiction and in the

United States waters of the Great Lakes

Basin or the French waters of the islands

of Saint Pierre and Miquelon;

vessels engaged in search and rescue

operations that are less than 50 m in

overall length and that have a maximum

ballast water capacity of 8 m3;

pleasure craft that are less than 50 m in

overall length and that have a maximum

ballast water capacity of 8 m3;

vessels that carry permanent ballast

Ships not designed or constructed to

carry ballast water.

Ships of a non-party that operate

exclusively in the waters of the Great

Lakes Basin without loading and

unloading ballast water in waters under

Canadian jurisdiction.

Ships that are owned or operated by a

state and used only in government non-

commercial service.

Ships that carry permanent ballast

water in sealed tanks such that it is not

subject to release.

Yes. Vessels that continuously take on and

discharge ballast (flow-through system),

National defense reserve fleet scheduled for

disposal if no operable BWMS onboard,

ballast taken on from a public or commercial

source that meets the standards of the Safe

Drinking Water Act, permanent ballast water

in a sealed tank, and discharge to a reception

facility.

Yes. Vessels engaged in short distance

voyages (i.e., operate or take on and

discharge ballast in one COTP or that do

not travel more than 10 nm and cross no

physical barriers or obstructions),

unmanned and unpowered barges,

existing lakers (pre-2009), and inland and

seagoing vessels less than 1,600 GRT.

Yes - Non-seagoing vessels, DOD/CG vessels, Armed

Forces vessels subject to ‘‘Uniform National Discharge

Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces’’. Warships,

naval auxiliary, or other vessels owned or operated by

foreign state used for noncommercial service. However,

such vessels should act in a manner consistent, w/BW

regulations. Vessels exempt from BWM, reporting, &

recordkeeping requirements: Crude oil tankers engaged in

coastwise trade. Vessels that operate only n one COTP

Zone. Vessels exempt only from BWM requirements:

Seagoing vessels that operate in more than one COTP

Zone, not outside EEZ, and less than or equal to 1,600

gross register tons/ 3,000 gross tons

InternationalTonnage.

Requirements do not apply to

vessels of the armed forces, as

defined in the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, or that are

owned or operated by a state and

used in government

noncommercial service.

Ballast Water Regulation Crosswalk - A Comparison of Current Ballast Water Regulations with U.S Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) and Proposed Canadian Regulations - 30 July 2019

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2011-237/page-1.html

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2019/2019-06-08/html/reg4-eng.html

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/140/text



https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0949


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-03-23/pdf/2012-6579.pdf


http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/seaway_handbook/seaway-handbook-en/practices_and_procedures.pdf

Rev 7/30/2019




Authorization Act





Applicability of ballast water

requirements

Ballast water brought to Canada from

outside the Canadian exclusive economic

zone, other than specific exemption

zones in the Atlantic and Pacific regions.

Subject vessels will comply with the

Convention regime.

However, vessels less than 50 meters in

length that remain in waters under

Canadian jurisdiction, the Great Lakes

Basin and the high seas may comply

with the equivalent compliance regime

(IMO Guideline G3).

Any discharge incidental to the normal

operation of a vessel that is a discharge of

ballast water

Any discharge incidental to the normal

operation of a vessel that is a discharge

of ballast water

Applies to all nonrecreational vessels, U.S. and foreign,

that are equipped with ballast tanks and operate in the

waters of the United States, except as specifically

excempted.

All ships requesting clearance for

using the Seaway. Includes ships

from a minimum size and weight

of: 6 m (19.7 ft) in overall length

or 900 kg (0.99 ton) in weight up

to the maximum size of 222.5 m

(730 ft) in overall length or 23.2 m

(76 ft) in extreme breadth.

Federal pre-emption of ballast

water requirements

Yes, matters of navigation and shipping

are exclusively federal.

Yes, matters of navigation and shipping

are exclusively federal.

Yes. Prohibits states from imposing more

stringent requirements once new VIDA

regulations are in force. Governors can

petition EPA/CG for more stringent federal

requirements or apply to EPA for no discharge

zones for one or more vessel classes and one

or more discharges.

No. States can request authorization to

administer permit program for

discharges (although no States did so).

For EPA issued permits such as the VGP,

states can add water quality

requirements to the federal permit per

CWA Section 401. (7 of 8 Great Lakes

states, excl. Pennsylvania, added ballast

water requirements to the VGP.)

No - specifically states: This subpart does not affect or

supersede any requirement or prohibition pertaining to

the discharge of ballast water into the waters of the

United States under the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1376)". (Clean Water Act)

N/A - condition for use of Seaway

Type approved BW treatment

systems required

No Yes - systems approved by

Administration in accordance with the

IMO BWMS Code or Guideline G8

To Be Determined (TBD) In part - Allows for use of USCG AMS or

USCG type-approved systems.

Yes - Currently 20 USCG Type Approved systems as of 24

July 2019 - List provided at:

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/MSC/BWMS/BWMS_

Approval_Status_24JUL19.pdf

No - Operational and

documentation requirements only

Discharge Concentration

Standard

Yes -Treatment to IMO D-2, or BW

Exchange

Yes - BW Performance Standard, IMO

reg D-2

TBD Yes - discharge standard equivalent to

USCG standard (IMO D-2) based on

"living" organism count.

Yes - discharge standard same as IMO D-2; However

"living" organisms vs "viable" (alive but not able to

reproduce) - technical issue resolved by VIDA legislation.

No - must comply w/BWE &

flushing requirements, salinity

requirement of 30 ppt, Must

comply w/Shipping Federation of

Canada Code of Best Practices for

BWM while operating anywhere in

GL-SLS after EEZ ops. All other

ships entering Seaway that

operated within GL-SLS must

comply with LCA & CSA Voluntary

Management Practices while

operating anywhere within GL-SLS











Rev 7/30/2019




Authorization Act





Measures to address BWMS

reliability

No Yes. Deemed compliance for GLSLS

ballast water if managed using a BWMS

installed before September 8, 2024,

and:

a. the vessel follows its approved

ballast water management plan and

carries a valid International Ballast

Water Management Certificate or

equivalent;

b. the ballast water management

system is in working order and has been

maintained in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions; and

c. the ballast water is managed in

accordance with the BWMS

manufacturer’s instructions, subject to

any “limiting operating conditions” and

“other restrictions” identified on the

type approval certificate issued

pursuant to the BWMS Code.

See also IMO experience-building

phase.

No. VIDA does prrovide that, generally,

vessels need only comply with BWMS

requirements applicable at time of

installation of system.

No Not specifically, but extended compliance dates until

USCG type-approved BWT systems became available.

N/A

Applies to Lakers

No - Does not apply to: vessels that

operate exclusively in Canadian waters or

Lakers in the United States waters of the

Great Lakes or the French waters of the

islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon

Yes - Canadian and all those that load

or discharge BW in Canadian waters

TBD. - Exempts vessels operating exclusively

in internal waters of US or Canada from

having to do BW exchange/flushing for empty

ballast tanks. Creates the Great Lakes & Lake

Champlain Invasive Species Program charged

with developing treatment technology for

lakers.

In part - Lakers built after January 1, 2009

must meet BW numerical discharge

limits. Existing lakers (built prior to

January 1, 2009) are exempt from

meeting discharge standard but must

meet additional ballast water BMPs.

No - Non-seagoing vessels are exempt from BWM

requirements

Only "Salty-Lakers" that transit

Seaway

Requires continuing practice of

BWE or Flushing, plus BW

treatment

No Yes, at freshwater ports, until

September 8, 2024

Yes. Adds a permanent exchange requirement

for all vessels entering the Seaway through

the mouth of the St. Lawrence River.

Yes, but to be reconsidered every 5 years

as part of permit reissuance.

No - Curent USCG requirements for BWE/Flushing will

cease when treatment requirements come into effect.

Flushing and BWE yes, treatment is

not addressed.

Review of Standards for

practicability, feasibility;

efficacy

No IMO Experience Building Phase (i.e.

Data gathering, analysis and review of

the Convention by 2022.)

Potential to review elements of

regulation September 8, 2024, as

required (e.g., BWMS install dates for

deeming, exchange plus treatment

sunset date)

Yes - review of performance standard

required no less than every 5 years.

Yes - EPA to reissue permit every 5 yrs

and update as appropriate; however

VIDA extends 2013 VGP as written until

new VIDA regulations are in force.

Yes - 46CFR 151.1511 c required a review of practicability

to be completed no later than 1/1/2016. Practicability

study published May 11, 2016 concluded it was not

practicable to apply more stringent rules at that time.

No











Rev 7/30/2019




Authorization Act





Compliance Dates for the

discharge standard

No Ships built after September 8, 2017 to

comply upon launch.

Ships built before September 8, 2017

that remain in waters under Canadian

jurisdiction, the U.S. waters of the Great

Lakes Basin (i.e. Lakers) and the high

seas to comply by September 8, 2024.

All other vessels to comply per IMO

timelines in Regulation B-3.

TBD New vessels constructed on or after 1

December 2013. (Same as USCG)

Existing vessels - 1st drydock after 1 Jan

2016, depending on BW capacity. (Same

as USCG)

EPA issued enforcement response plan

(ERP) policy providing for consistency

with USCG compliance extensions.

New vessels - Constructed on or after 1 Dec 2013

Existing Vessels - 1st drydock after 1 Jan 2016; depending

on BW capacity

USCG can extend vessel compliance date if operator

demonsrates they cannot practicably comply by the

compliance date.

Not addressed

Exceptions

Ballast water need not be managed if one

of the following emergency situations

occurs: - the uptake

or release of ballast water is necessary for

the purpose of ensuring the safety of the

vessel in an emergency situation or saving

life at sea;

- the uptake or release of ballast water is

necessary for the purpose of avoiding or

minimizing the discharge of a pollutant

from the vessel; or

- the ingress or release of ballast water

occurs as a result of an accident of

navigation in which a vessel or its

equipment is damaged, unless the

accident occurs as a result of an action

that is outside the ordinary practice of

seafarers.

Per IMO Reg A-3, ballast water

management requirements do not

apply:

- in an emergency situation for reasons

of safety or saving life at sea

- to accidental discharges

- to ballast water used to avoid

pollution incidents from the vessel

- to the same ballast water loaded and

unloaded on the high seas

- to ballast water loaded and unloaded

within 10 NM without crossing a

physical barrier or obstruction

TBD Specific conditions addressing safty

exceptions are stated in section 6 for

Individual States or Indian Country Lands.

Part 151.2040 prescribes requirements for discharge of

ballast water in extraordinary circumstances, such as

emergency situations where exchange was not possible or

situations where ballast water treatment equipment fails.

Case by case approval by USCG required.

None

Approved BW Management

Plan

Plan similar to that required by

Regulation B-1 is required, but not

approval

Yes, as per IMO Regulation B-1 TBD Yes - Vessel operators must maintain a

written plan, including training of crew.

Yes Code of best practices

Ballast Water Record Book

No Yes, per IMO Regulation B-2 TBD. Did add a requirement for the vessel

operator to document when a vessel fails to

carry out ballast water management

requirements as applicable and pursuant to

regulations promulgated by the USCG.

Yes, although does not have to be called

a record book. Also requires retention of

ballast water sampling results (and

submission of those results to EPA

annually). Records must be retained

onboard for at least 3 years.

Yes Yes - part of code of best practices











Rev 7/30/2019




Authorization Act





Ballast Water Report Form

Yes Yes TBD Yes - requires compliance with USCG

reporting requirements with additional

requirements for saltwater flushing

Yes - Form and instructions provided on the National

Ballast Information Clearinghouse at the following link:

https://nbic.si.edu/submit/

Yes - Seaway Ballast Water

Reporting Form:

http://www.greatlakes-

seaway.com/en/commercial/Seaw

ay_BW_Form.html accepted by

USCG, TC and Seaway

corporations.

International BW Management

Certificate

No Yes, IMO Section E

Non-Party vessels must carry

equivalent.

TBD No although allows vessels to use

international type-approved BWMS to

meet ballast water discharge standards.

No - although an approved AMS would have an

International BW Management Certificate.

No - requires pre-clearance

Periodic review of standards

No Canada will participate in IMO's

experience-building phase

Yes, requires both EPA to review standards

and USCG to review implementing regulations

every 5 years and revise as necessary to

reflect best available technology economically

achievable.

Yes. Requires EPA to review the permit

every 5 years and modify as necessary to

reflect best available technology.

No, but leaves open the possibility of another

practicability review.

No

Research and Development

Not in regulation Not linked to regulations. However,

Canada intends to:

- undertake research on effectiveness

of BWMS and Exchange plus Treatment

- contribute related data to the IMO

experience-building phase

Yes - Includes a grant program & Invasive

species program; both charged with

developing BW treatment technology; GL &

Lake Champlain Inv. Species Program

ccharged with developing treatment

technology for lakers. Authorizes funding for

programs - subject to appropriations

No No - nothing other than the practiability review No

Allows Shoreside Reception

Facilities

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - also allows use of a public water supply for taking on

ballast water, with some requirements.

Not addressed

Cross-Border Government, FN,

Tribal Consultation

Yes, under Great Lakes Water Quality

Agreement


Agreement

Yes - requires consultation w/both federal

and provincial Canadian representatives as

well as other stakeholders when developing

regional Great Lakes requirements.

Requires tribal consultation (within U.S.)

only..

Included in domestic rule-making process - public notice

in Federal Register

Not addressed

Public Engagement


Agreement, and Canadian Marine

Advisory Council


Agreement, and Canadian Marine

Advisory Council

Yes. Provides for public notice of both draft

standards and implementing regulations.

Also consultation w/both federal and

provincial Canadian representatives as well as

other stakeholders on Great Lakes specific

requirements.

Required public notice of draft permit in

Federal Register.

Included in domestic rule-making process - public notice

in Federal Register

Not addressed











Rev 7/30/2019




Authorization Act





Ship engineering installation,

piping, electrical, structural,

stability plan review and

approval

Other Canadian regulations apply Part of plan approval. Other Canadian

regulations also apply

TBD although new requirements are to be no

less stringent than existing requirements.

No, although relies on USCG approvals

based on reviews of such.

Yes - USCG Marine Safety Center - current engineering

and electrical regs apply

No

On board inspection & testing

Yes Through port state control. See

"measures to address BWMS

reliability," above. May not require on-

board testing - vessel deemed

compliant if using BWMS installed

before September 8, 2024 and in

proper working order - conditions

apply.

TBD although new requirements are to be no

less stringent than existing requirements.

Certification and testing required of

operator. Allows for EPA inspection and

enforcement under CWA authorities.

Yes Yes - BW enforcement on 100% of

all ballast tanks

Crew competency provisions

BW management plan required to have

operation, safety instructions, and

identified responsible person

Yes, as part of Convention regulation B-

1 (BW management plan) and Article 9

(inspection).

TBD Yes - All owner/operators of vessels

equipped with ballast water tanks must

train master, operator, person-in-charge,

& crew members who actively take part

in the management of the discharge or

who may affect the discharge, on the

application of ballast water and sediment

management and treatment procedures.

Yes - The BW Operation, Maintenance & Safety Manual

must include BWMS personnel requirements, including

number and types of personnel needed, labor burden,

and operator training or specialty certification

requirements. Also - Description of the preventive and

corrective maintenance requirements of the BWMS,

including: Inspection and adjustment procedures;

Troubleshooting procedures, parts/spare parts lists, use of

tools & use of test equipment as well as point(s) of

contact for technical assistance.

None stated in Code of best

Practices

Penalty Provisions

Yes - Standard CSA 2001 provisions apply. Yes - Standard CSA 2001 provisions

apply.

VIDA amends Clean Water Act Section 309 to

include similar enforcement authorities as

under VGP and provides USCG and states

authority to enforce. Operators are liable for

among other things, civil penalties not to

exceed $46,192 per day for each violation.

Criminal violations may result in penalties and

imprisonment. Also provides in rem liability

and give USCG authority to revoke vessel

clearance.

Yes. Subject to Clean Water Act Section

309, operators are liable for among

other things, civil penalties not to exceed

$46,192 per day for each violation.

Criminal violations may result in

penalties and imprisonment.

Yes - A person who violates 46CFR151 rqmts is liable for a

civil penalty not to exceed $35,000. Each day of a

continuing violation constitutes a separate violation.

Vessel operated in violation of the regulations is liable in

rem for any civil penalty assessed. A person who

knowingly violates the regulations is guilty of a class C

felony.

Revocation of clearance, civil

penalties











Rev 7/30/2019




Authorization Act





Addresses Other Discharges in

Addition to Ballast Water

No - addressed in other regulations i.e.

Vessel pollution and dangerous chemicals

regulations

No - addressed in other regulations i.e.

Vessel pollution and dangerous

chemicals regulations

Yes, requires EPA and the USCG to develop

regulations for all discharges incidental to the

normal operation of a vessel.

Yes, includes requirements for all

discharges incidental to the normal

operation of a vessel.

No - specifically states that subpart does not authorize the

discharge of oil or noxious liquid substances (NLS) in a

manner

prohibited by United States or international laws or

regulations. Ballast water carried in any tank containing a

residue of oil, NLS, or any other pollutant must be

discharged in

accordance with applicable laws and

regulations..

No

Comments: The Ballast Water Regulation Crosswalk is intended to show where key elements of regulations/proposed regulations intersect. Links to source documents are provided at the top of each column on page one.

Disclaimer - The Ballast Water Regulation Crosswalk has been revised to incorporate review comments received as of July 30, 2019. It is intended to be an informational piece, compiled and edited by IJC staff with information from published statutes, regulations and publicly

available sources, It does not represent any final agency decisions regarding implementation of VIDA or the proposed Transport Canada regulations. Specific comments regarding proposed TC or VIDA rulemaking should be directed to the appropriate agency. The Ballast

Water Regulation Crosswalk is a living document and comments and suggestions are welcome. Please send comments and suggestions to Mark Burrows at the IJC Great Lakes Regional Office at; [email protected].













EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Darren J. Nichols

Memorandum

To: Great Lakes Commission

Fr: Darren Nichols, Executive Director

Dt: September 30, 2019

Re: Overview of Great Lakes Commission staff work for 2019-2020 ________________________________________________________________________ Purpose The enclosed Strategic Plan Progress Report summarizes the Commission’s staff work within each formal program area in the Great Lakes Commission’s 2017-2022 Strategic Plan. This memo briefly summarizes staff work in areas that may not directly align with the formal Strategic Plan but are important to fulfill the agency’s mission and responsibilities under the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The report and the memo together provide an overall summary of the Commission’s recent and upcoming work. Commission staff invites questions, welcomes feedback, and respectfully requests that the Commission provide its general endorsement to continue working on existing projects, Strategic Plan program areas and activities outlined in this memo through the remainder of 2019-2020. GLC staff also invites commissioners to engage in the Commission’s work by participating on the GLC Board of Directors or through one or more of the Commission’s established or ad hoc committees. Overview of Existing Efforts Following is an outline of staff work that falls outside formal Strategic Plan program areas: Advisory Groups/Committees The Commission’s staff serve on advisory groups and committees across the Basin. Following is a representative list of boards, committees and advisory groups currently staffed:

• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement o Participation on various Annex subcommittees

• Great Lakes Executive Committee (GLEC) and Tri-Commission partnership • Tri-Commission executive directors and staff quarterly coordination meetings (Great Lakes

Fishery Commission, International Joint Commission and Great Lakes Commission) • Great Lakes Dredging Team – GLC staff currently facilitates the GLDT • Areas of Concern (AOC) restoration meetings and annual conference • Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research (CIGLR) • Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) • Advisory Committee to Heidelberg University – National Center for Water Quality Research • Great Lakes Sea Grant Network – historically hosting an annual fellowship candidate • Michigan Sea Grant Advisory Board • Great Lakes St. Lawrence Water Resources Compact Council and Regional Body Resource Group • Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC) • Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Panel



• Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) Aquatic Invasive Species Stakeholder Group – ex oficio • Executive Steering Committee, Great Lakes and Mississippi River Inter-basin Study (GLMRIS) • Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership • Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel for the Great Lakes One Water Partnership • Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (with UW-Madison) • The Great Waters Research Collaborative • Great Lakes Coastal Assembly • Others as needed

Briefings, interviews and presentations The Commission and its staff are frequently asked to speak at events ranging from community gatherings to national and occasionally international conferences. Staff frequently present policy and position briefings at:

• State and provincial executive and legislative offices as part of the Commission’s informal state/provincial relations efforts;

• Washington, D.C. and Capitol Hill in-person meetings and relations with staff, partner agencies and organizations, and with commission members;

• Relationship-building outreach to and meetings with tribes and First Nations; and • Local governments, primarily through on-the-ground projects and as needed to secure the

perspectives of local communities in GLC-led policy making efforts. Staff also provide briefings, presentations, interviews and materials for:

• The Commission, states and provinces (governors/premiers/legislatures/agencies), U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, Observers, public fora, project partners, national/global outreach, Washington D.C.-area offices, funders and others.

Events and Conferences GLC staff routinely attend and occasionally present at the annual events and conferences of a wide range of other Great Lakes organizations. Those events and organizations typically include:

• Great Lakes Executive Committee bi-annual meetings • Great Lakes Fishery Commission Annual meeting • Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Panel bi-annual meetings • Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers – annual summit • Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative – annual meeting • US Army Corps of Engineers’ General’s Inspection Tour • American Great Lakes Ports Association – Annual Conference • Great Lakes Advisory Committee – Green Marine Program and GreenTech 2019 Conference • Great Lakes Waterways Conference • U.S. EPA Annual Conference for the Great Lakes Areas of Concern Program • Highway H2O Conference – focused on St. Lawrence Seaway • NOAA/NSF research and planning workshop Coastlines and People • Great Lakes Dredging Team • And others as appropriate

GLC are asked to prepared briefings and give presentations to a variety of different groups and audiences. These presentations are often part of formal conferences and symposia but also include specific one-time requests. Examples include:

• International Association of Great Lakes Research (IAGLR) Annual Conference • Healing Our Waters (HOW) Annual Conference • Annual and periodic meetings of the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact and Regional Body • Annual Great Lakes Inspection Tour organized by the USACE-Great Lakes and Ohio River Division • University of Toledo – Great Lakes Law Conference

Commission Administration GLC staff convenes, facilitates and records regularly scheduled meetings of the Commission (biannual), the Board (monthly), Program Committees (periodically as needed) and the Executive Committee (weekly). GLC staff recognizes that Commission support and communication is an area of need for the organization; staff proposes to continue the Commission’s regular meeting schedule and will seek new opportunities to communicate with the Commission as needs arise and as staff capacity permits. This is one area for consideration under an administrative assessment of the agency. Agency Administration and Management GLC staff meets regularly at three primary levels: Senior Management Team, All Staff, and individual project teams. Staff proposes to continue with its current staff coordination structure. Additional Areas of Need and Opportunity GLC staff have identified the following areas of general need within the agency. These needs may be met through a variety of arrangements including direct staffing, strategic partnering, temporary project-related staffing or potential job share/professional development.

• Communications, development and strategy – additional capacity, strategic messaging • External and governmental relations – building and maintaining consistent relationships • Data architecture, library science and information management – capacity and expertise • Economic analysis – wide range of policy applications • Land Use and Regional Planning – policy and practice • Sustainable Economic and Community Development – policy and practice • Transportation policy (general)

o Maritime transportation policy (specific) • Demographic and population forecast analysis • Great Lakes Basin-wide policy strategy – identifying priority needs, opportunities and issues • Training, leadership, staff and commission development • Ethics – policy and training • Public records – policy and archives • Human Resources – general capacity and expertise • Budgeting, fiscal management and state/provincial reporting – additional capacity • Legal assessment/advice/counsel on compact provisions, revenue, contracts • Administrative, structural and strategic assessment of the agency, mission, roles • Strategic Planning: Goals/objectives, strategic actions, monitoring/feedback, adaptation

1

Strategic Plan for the Great Lakes Commission

2017 – 2022

A D O P T E D J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7

Introduction

The Great Lakes Commission is a public agency established by the Great Lakes Basin Compact in 1955 to help its Member states speak with a unified voice and collectively fulfill their vision for a healthy, vibrant Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region. The Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec joined the Commission as associate members via a Declaration of Partnership in 1999. The Compact created the Commission to implement its terms and requirements, as noted in Article I:

1. To promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin.

2. To plan for the welfare and development of the water resources of the Basin as a whole as well as for those portions of the Basin which may have problems of special concern.

3. To make it possible for the states of the Basin and their people to derive the maximum benefit from utilization of public works, in the form of navigational aids or otherwise, which may exist or which may be constructed from time to time.

4. To advise in securing and maintaining a proper balance among industrial, commercial, agricultural, water supply, residential, recreational, and other legitimate uses of the water resources of the Basin.

Collectively, these terms and the rest of the Compact consistently speak to the intertwining of economic uses of water resources, conservation and the creation of an organization to lead a path that strikes a balance among multiple uses.

Vision

The Great Lakes Commission is a binational leader and a trusted voice ensuring the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River support a healthy environment, vibrant economy and high quality of life for current and future generations.

Mission

The Great Lakes Commission represents, advises and assists its member states and provinces by fostering dialogue, developing consensus, facilitating collaboration and speaking with a unified voice to advance collective interests and responsibilities to promote economic prosperity and environmental protection and to achieve the balanced and sustainable use of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin water resources.

S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E G R E A T L A K E S C O M M I S S I O N

2

Values

The following core values guide the work of the Great Lakes Commission and set the standards that we aspire to achieve in serving our member states and provinces.

Member led: We are guided by and serve the common interests of our member states and provinces.

Regional perspective: We bring a regional perspective to federal, state and provincial programs, policies, projects and priorities.

Leadership: We are ambassadors for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region and serve as liaisons within and beyond the region.

Collaboration: We advance our objectives in close coordination with the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers, the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and constant dialogue with other regional institutions and relevant entities.

Partnerships: We respect the roles of other regional institutions and agencies and collaborate to achieve common goals and interests.

Transparency: We are open and transparent in carrying out our work.

Integrity: We strive for the highest levels of honesty, credibility and accuracy in the information, recommendations and perspectives that we convey.

Objective: We are nonpartisan, balanced and science-based in our work, while promoting a vision of a healthy environment and vibrant economy, pursued by each of our member states and provinces.

Open-minded: We are inclusive and welcome diverse views.

Sustainability: We incorporate principles of sustainable development and adaptive management in our work.

Core Competencies

The Great Lakes Commission is uniquely equipped to serve its member states and provinces with the following core services, which constitute the skills, knowledge base, professional competencies and leadership attributes that are applied across all of its program areas. The core competencies are how the Commission conducts its work to achieve its goals, fulfill its mission and advance its vision. Communications and Outreach: The Commission raises awareness; communicates with federal, state/provincial, and local agencies and stakeholders; and provides information technologies and outreach services to support effective decision-making and stewardship. Information Management and Delivery: The Commission collects, integrates and makes accessible high quality and unbiased data and information to enable its member jurisdictions and other parties to develop sound policies, manage and adapt programs, and make informed decisions affecting the water resources of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region. Facilitation and Consensus Building: The Commission facilitates, convenes and participates in forums that address issues of interest to its members. By serving as a neutral broker of information and research and facilitating dialogue among diverse perspectives, it helps build consensus on solutions to challenges and opportunities facing Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River water resources. Policy Coordination and Advocacy: The Commission helps its member states and provinces speak with a common voice by coordinating, analyzing, advising, communicating and advocating shared policy priorities. The Commission also collaborates with other regional, national and international organizations to advance common interests.


3

Regional Project Management: The Commission secures resources and coordinates activities that address common interests of its member jurisdictions and provides the capacity to manage projects and administer funding to member states, provinces and other partners to advance shared goals.

Program Areas

The Great Lakes Commission designs the work of its programs to support its goals and vision. The Goals articulate general outcomes we hope to achieve through our collective work across all Program Areas. Each of the Program Areas includes one Objective and, under each, a series of Strategic Actions that indicate what the Commission seeks to accomplish, while recognizing that the Commission’s work alone will not completely fulfill these Objectives. The strategic actions reflect what the Commission does and the projects and activities the Commission will undertake to address its goals, objectives and fulfill its mission over the next five years.

Goals

The Great Lakes Commission’s goals articulate the outcomes it seeks to advance over the five-year timeframe of its strategic plan by building on its mission and vision and working in partnership with its member states and provinces and other entities.

Businesses, communities and agriculture leverage water resources as assets to support strong economies and a high quality of life for residents.

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River water resources are protected from pollution and impacts from climate change; are accessible to people; provide high quality drinking water; and are managed in a balanced and sustainable manner for the benefit of current and future generations.

Aquatic habitats support diverse and healthy fish and wildlife populations, are protected from the negative impacts of aquatic invasive species, and provide cultural and economic benefits to local communities.

Harbors and waterways support recreational uses and a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system that efficiently moves goods and enhances the competitiveness of the region’s economy and international trade.

1. Water Quality

Challenges and Opportunities:

The Great Lakes basin’s abundant supply of clean, fresh water is vital to the regional economy and the health of its communities. Recognizing this, federal, state and provincial laws have been designed to ensure that water quality is sufficient to allow for a safe and sustainable public water supply, water-dependent economic activities, agriculture, healthy fish and wildlife populations, and water-related tourism and recreation. Additionally, water quality is increasingly linked to water quantity, in particular as governments address the threat of climate change. With expert knowledge of water issues and strong relationships with water quality practitioners across many sectors, the Commission is well-positioned to identify and share innovative solutions to water quality challenges, and to advance regional approaches to water quality protection and improvement. The Commission will utilize its expertise and capacity to maximize its members’ collective impact to improve and protect water quality in urban and urbanizing areas; in rural and agricultural areas; and other diverse stakeholders within sub-watersheds across the basin. Objective: Identify, promote, and share innovative solutions to water quality challenges in both urban and rural settings, and advance approaches that encourage collective action to protect and improve water quality across diverse landscapes within watersheds.


4

Strategic Actions:

Protect and improve water quality by: leading and partnering on projects; facilitating dialogue and building consensus; and delivering information that improves the region’s ability to measure progress on water quality protection and improvement. Lead the ErieStat project to track progress toward the shared goal of reducing phosphorus into western Lake Erie by 40% by 2025 and begin a drinking water supply pilot as part of the Blue Accounting initiative.

Protect and improve water quality in urban and urbanizing areas by leading and partnering on green infrastructure projects and related activities, such as the Green Infrastructure Technology Transfer Collaborative, that can create enabling conditions to restore the fractured water cycle.

Protect and improve water quality in rural and agricultural areas by leading and partnering on projects and activities that reduce sediment and nutrient loads into Great Lakes basin waters through ongoing partnerships with NRCS, conservation districts, authorities and agricultural interests. Work will range from administering funds to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff to leading or supporting projects that advance traditional and innovative approaches to manage sediment and nutrient loading in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) priority watersheds and watershed-based solutions across the basin.

Explore opportunities to support the states and provinces in tackling complex aspects of water quality, including water quality trading and other market-based approaches, leveraging the region’s abundant clean fresh water assets to advance more sustainable methods of agricultural production, and linking urban/urbanizing landscapes with rural/agricultural landscapes to improve water quality across entire watersheds.

Support the states and provinces in planning and adapting to water quality implications of climate change.

Address critical water quality challenges, such harmful algal blooms, by facilitating regional forums, including collaboratives, such as the Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Collaboratory, and participating in others, such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement’s annexes, to build consensus around shared water quality goals and associated solutions to achieve those goals.

Advocate for refinements to U.S. federal policy and legislation to protect and improve water quality, including the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Water Resources Development Act, and the U.S. Farm Bill.

2. Water Management and Infrastructure

Challenges and Opportunities: Strengthening the effective management of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin water resources to meet the needs of the region’s citizens continues to be a top priority of Great Lakes governors and premiers. Due to its history, mandate and expertise the Great Lakes Commission is uniquely qualified to lead and support efforts in this area, and has already assisted the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers in implementing the regional water resources agreements. At the local level, aging and degraded water infrastructure (drinking, storm and wastewater) is increasingly threatening communities’ access to this valuable freshwater resource. Water and wastewater infrastructure challenges are exacerbated by climate change impacts, such as increased runoff caused by more severe and frequent storm events, that often lead to increased flooding, sanitary and storm sewer overflows, and risks to public health and the health of the Great Lakes. The Commission has supported innovative projects focused on maximizing investments in water conservation and green infrastructure to support water management, and is working to establish new partnerships, identify new solutions to water infrastructure challenges, develop tools to support decision-making, and better manage data and information in these areas. Additionally, the Commission’s advocacy program continues to promote federal programs, policies and funding to help states, provinces and local communities


5

manage water infrastructure. As water quantity and quality issues are inextricably linked, the Commission’s work in this area complements efforts under the water quality program area. Objective: Ensure that the waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin continue to support the needs of communities, businesses, industries and ecology; are protected from development impacts, pollution, climate change and other stressors; and are managed in a balanced and sustainable manner for the use, benefit and enjoyment of people today and future generations.

Strategic Actions:

In partnership with the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers, support decision-making and measure progress under the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Water Resources Compact by compiling, interpreting and disseminating consistent water withdrawal, diversion and consumptive use information; supporting the cumulative impact assessment called for under the Compact and the Agreement; and providing information on regional trends and state and provincial programs, practices and policies related to water use and conservation.

Lead and engage in the development and dissemination of data and information necessary for implementing drinking, storm and wastewater management programs that identify critical needs and advance solutions to the benefit of public health and safety, water infrastructure and delivery, ecosystem health and water quality.

Identify and advance solutions to water management and infrastructure challenges by facilitating forums, initiatives and partnerships including the Commission’s working group on water infrastructure.

Raise awareness of the fundamental value of water and the need for infrastructure improvements by advocating for federal legislation and funding to support and accelerate drinking, storm and wastewater infrastructure improvements through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs and other water management programs and by promoting the benefits of integrating water delivery and wastewater management services to the states, provinces and municipalities in the region.

3. Commercial Navigation

Challenges and Opportunities: The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system is vital to the economies of the United States and Canada. The system facilitates domestic and international trade through the movement of goods and commodities, while creating jobs in port communities and supporting industries such as manufacturing, steel production, agribusiness and power generation. Ensuring the continued viability of commercial navigation requires maintaining and investing in harbors, ports, shipping channels, locks and related infrastructure throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system, including regular dredging. These activities require close regional and binational coordination, given the interdependent nature of the system and the critical role played by key infrastructure like the Soo Locks and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers recently completed a comprehensive strategy for the navigation system that aims to double maritime trade, improve environmental performance and support the region’s industrial core. The strategy recommends actions to maintain and expand the maritime transportation system and establishes a Regional Maritime Entity to coordinate state and provincial actions. With its dual mandate for both economic development and environmental protection, and its longstanding role as an advocate for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River maritime transportation, the Great Lakes Commission is uniquely qualified to support the objectives of the governors’ and premiers’ new maritime strategy. Objective: Improve the efficiency, competitiveness, security and sustainability of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system to support the regional and national economies of the United States and Canada.


6

Strategic Actions:

Collaborate with the Regional Maritime Entity and other stakeholders to support implementation of the governors’ and premiers’ Strategy for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Maritime Transportation System, with a focus on establishing a maritime careers portal, maintaining the maritime asset inventory, managing data and information to track progress in implementing the strategy and aligning data collection and reporting with the Blue Accounting initiative.

In collaboration with the Regional Maritime Entity and other stakeholders, identify and advocate for priorities to maintain and strengthen the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system, including allocating funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; constructing a new large lock at the Soo Locks; dredging to maintain authorized depths of channels and harbors and additional depth needed in critical areas; repairing and investing in aging navigation infrastructure; ensuring adequate icebreaking capacity; developing sustainable strategies for managing dredged material; and supporting the development of technologies to improve the system’s environmental performance.

Convene or participate in regional partnerships, forums and initiatives related to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system, including the Regional Maritime Entity, Great Lakes Dredging Team, Great Ships Initiative, and the Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition.

4. Economic Development and Waterfront Community Revitalization

Challenges and Opportunities: The unique freshwater resources of the Great Lakes fueled the region’s early development, with waterfront areas historically serving as centers of economic activity. Currently, many Great Lakes coastal communities are working to restore and reclaim degraded or under-utilized waterfronts and leverage them to support economic development, recreation and other purposes. The GLRI is accelerating this process, particularly in the Areas of Concern. Recreational boating and other water-based activities drive a vibrant tourism and outdoor recreation sector centered on the Great Lakes and their tributaries. Regional leaders have recognized the potential of fresh water and the “Blue Economy” to promote economic growth, attract and retain talent, support water-dependent industries, and sustain a high quality of life in the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes Commission is well suited to develop tools and support strategies to advance waterfront community revitalization through research, policy development, information exchange and technology transfer, and stakeholder collaboration. The Commission is also uniquely positioned to advocate for federal, state and provincial policies, programs and funding to support efforts to restore and revitalize waterfront areas, ensure resiliency to impacts from climate change, and balance environmental and economic benefits from water resources. Finally, the Commission can collaborate with regional leaders to strengthen the economy and promote the Great Lakes region as a global center for research and development of technologies to utilize and manage freshwater resources. Objective: Support the efforts of the states and provinces – in collaboration with federal agencies, local communities, and nongovernmental stakeholders – to restore and revitalize waterfront areas and advance policies, programs and funding to leverage water resources to support a strong regional economy and high quality of life. Strategic Actions:

Support research, disseminate information, and collaborate with regional leaders to quantify the economic value of Great Lakes water resources, the return on investments in environmental restoration and water-related infrastructure, and the ecosystem benefits and services generated by the Great Lakes, and facilitate a cooperative, regional approach to advancing the “Blue Economy.”

Support the work of the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers’ regional economic task force, and collaborate with other partners such as the Council of Great Lakes Industries and the Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition, to strengthen water-related infrastructure, industries and


7

commerce and facilitate a cooperative approach to improve regional economic performance and competitiveness.

Support implementation of the GLRI and other regional programs to clean up and restore waterfront areas, and advance policies, funding and information exchange to assist the states, provinces and local communities in strategically leveraging water resources to strengthen local economies and provide benefits for residents and visitors.

Advocate with Congress and federal agencies for programs, policies and funding that support state and local efforts to clean up and revitalize waterfront areas, including the GLRI, Coastal Zone Management Act, National Sea Grant College Program, and brownfields redevelopment programs, and assist in effectively implementing these programs and linking them with state and provincial priorities.

Collaborate with other water-related commissions in the U.S., Canada, and abroad to share information, exchange strategies, and advance common goals directed at solving problems affecting water resources and leveraging them as vital regional assets.

5. Coastal Conservation and Habitat Restoration

Challenges and Opportunities: The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin includes more than 10,000 miles of coastline, with the majority of the region’s population and economic activities located in coastal areas. These areas support both rich and diverse ecosystems and valuable industrial, recreational and tourism economies. However, in some areas extensive human activity has led to the loss of habitat for fish and wildlife and impacts to key ecosystem functions and values. The Commission is well positioned to assist the states, provinces and local partners in balancing the use and conservation of natural resources by restoring and protecting habitat for fish and wildlife; supporting the remediation of degraded areas; and ensuring resiliency to changing lake levels and impacts from climate change. The Commission is also developing and managing several collaborative partnerships to coordinate regional engagement, improve management, advance research, and facilitate communication and outreach to address coastal conservation challenges. Objective: Conserve coastal ecosystem functions and values that contribute to the diversity, resilience and economy of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin by protecting natural communities that sustain populations of desirable fish and wildlife species; restoring degraded areas; and managing coastal resources to improve ecosystem services while supporting sustainable economic development. Strategic Actions:

Lead and support regional programs that restore, protect and manage valuable habitat and water resources through implementation of the NOAA-GLC Regional Partnership in Areas of Concern, and in coordination with U.S. EPA, NOAA, states and provinces, and local organizations.

Elevate awareness of coastal conservation issues among decision-makers, managers, researchers and the public by convening meetings, coordinating action and developing communication products such as websites, webinars, and publications.

Explore and develop data and information-sharing opportunities to support ongoing coastal wetland restoration prioritization, contribute to decision-making and measure progress on coastal conservation and habitat restoration across the region.

Communicate with partners including U.S. EPA, NOAA, USGS, NRCS, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex 7 Subcommittee, to ensure effective coordination and collaboration with state and provincial agencies,


8

agriculture producers, conservation groups and local partners in support of sound land management practices and strategically targeted fish and wildlife restoration and conservation actions.

Advocate for legislation and funding for federal programs, policies and laws, such as the GLRI, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act and the Farm Bill, and support their effective implementation and alignment with state and provincial priorities.

6. Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Control

Challenges and Opportunities: Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are recognized as one of the most significant threats to the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region. Progress is being made to reduce threats of new invasions and the damage from those species already introduced. Yet, the region remains vulnerable to AIS introduction and spread from various pathways and AIS threats are likely to evolve under a changing climate. AIS do not respect political boundaries and states and provinces vary in their approaches and capacity for prevention and management. Preventing new AIS introductions and controlling those already present is a priority for regional leaders. The Commission is well-positioned to coordinate multijurisdictional approaches to AIS prevention and control. Commission staff is equipped with an in-depth knowledge of AIS issues and strong relationships with AIS practitioners from both the public and private sector. The Commission’s AIS expertise is founded in its historic relationship with the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. The Commission will utilize its expertise and capacity to advance effective, regional solutions for AIS prevention and control. Objective: Prevent the introduction and spread, and when necessary, advance the management and control of aquatic invasive species, that are or have the potential to negatively impact water resources or the economy of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. Strategic Actions:

Develop and promote communication products and services, including websites, webinars, and publications (e.g., Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions) that provide AIS information and advance progress on AIS prevention and control.

Develop and promote the use of adaptive management frameworks and data and information integration platforms in order to support decision making (including evaluating costs and benefits) and measure progress on AIS prevention and control across the region.

Facilitate regional forums and collaboratives working to advance effective and coordinated approaches to AIS prevention and control, including the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, the Chicago Area Waterway System Advisory Committee, and the Great Lakes Phragmites and Invasive Mussel collaboratives, among others.

Collaborate with other partner groups engaged in AIS prevention and control to support and advance common AIS priorities, including the GLWQA Annex 6 Subcommittee, the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers AIS Task Force, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the International Joint Commission, the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and other regional ANS panels, among others.

Advocate for legislation and funding to support effective implementation of federal programs, policies and laws, such as the National Invasive Species Act, Lacey Act, GLRI, and Asian Carp Action Plan.

Lead regional projects that advance policies and solutions to reduce the risk of AIS introduction and spread through priority pathways including internet sales of organisms in trade, canals and waterways and ballast water.


9

7. Information Management and Blue Accounting

Challenges and Opportunities: The Great Lakes Basin Compact charged the Commission to “collect, correlate, interpret, and report on data relating to the water resources and the use thereof in the Basin or any portion thereof.” Since its inception, the Commission has been a trusted source of information through many programs including the Great Lakes Information Network. Through this program area, the Commission develop the foundation for supporting all other program areas outlined in the Compact, and continue to assemble, curate, manage and deliver information to support the conservation and balanced use of the Great Lakes. A core component of this program area is the Blue Accounting initiative (http://BlueAccounting.org), a partnership between the Commission and The Nature Conservancy. Blue Accounting will provide Great Lakes leaders with information services that measure the progress being made across the region toward shared desired outcomes for the Great Lakes. Objective: The Commission’s member states and provinces have access to high-quality, curated information about Great Lakes issues from a neutral and authoritative source. Strategic Actions:

Deliver consistent, continuous and unbiased information to the Commission’s member states and provinces on issues and outcomes of mutual interest and concern including the support of other Commission Program Areas described in this Strategic Plan.

Establish Blue Accounting as a leading information service to track the region’s progress towards shared goals and outcomes using consistent data, metrics and methods, working with The Nature Conservancy and other partners in both countries. Specifically, provide support to the Source Water Initiative and ErieStat, described in the Water Quality Program Area, as a Blue Accounting pilot projects.

Develop and maintain mutually-beneficial relationships with agencies and entities across the region, in both nations, at federal, state, provincial, tribal/First Nations, local and municipal scales to coordinate information management and provide information to the Commission for use by its members.

Support and enhance the efforts of Annex 10 of the GLWQA, the IJC’s Science Priority Committee and the Great Lakes Advisory Board’s Science and Information Subcommittee to improve information coordination and flow between entities and agencies in the Great Lakes region.

Coordinate and provide information to support spill prevention and response programs, working with U.S. EPA across the Great Lakes basin and continuing current work with the Region 5 Regional Response Team to build intergovernmental relationships that improve planning and make response efforts more efficient.

Provide facilitation and information management services to support development of strategies and policies to assure protection of the region’s water resources in the context of increases in North American oil production and associated oil transportation to and through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region.

Conclusion

The Commission is committed to constantly improving its organizational processes and using the best metrics available to evaluate projects and services to its member jurisdictions. More specific plans to implement these actions and metrics to measure progress and allocate financial resources will be developed following completion of the plan. We will provide reports on progress to GLC Commissioners twice a year. We will assess progress and address emerging issues annually.

http://blueaccounting.org/

Water Quality Objective: Identify, promote, and share innovative solutions to water quality challenges in both urban and rural settings, and advance approaches that encourage collective action to protect and improve water quality across diverse landscapes within watersheds. More information can be found at www.glc.org/work/water-quality. Strategic Actions:

• Protect and improve water quality by: leading and partnering on projects; facilitating dialogue and building consensus; and delivering information that improves the region’s ability to measure progress on water quality protection and improvement. Lead the ErieStat project to track progress toward the shared goal of reducing phosphorus into western Lake Erie by 40 percent by 2025 and begin a drinking water supply pilot as part of the Blue Accounting initiative.

• Protect and improve water quality in urban and urbanizing areas by leading and partnering on green

infrastructure projects and related activities, such as the Green Infrastructure Technology Transfer Collaborative, that can create enabling conditions to restore the fractured water cycle.

• Protect and improve water quality in rural and agricultural areas by leading and partnering on projects and

activities that reduce sediment and nutrient loads into Great Lakes basin waters through ongoing partnerships with NRCS, conservation districts, authorities and agricultural interests. Work will range from administering funds to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff to leading or supporting projects that advance traditional and innovative approaches to manage sediment and nutrient loading in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) priority watersheds and watershed-based solutions across the basin.

• Explore opportunities to support the states and provinces in tackling complex aspects of water quality,

including water quality trading and other market-based approaches, leveraging the region’s abundant clean fresh water assets to advance more sustainable methods of agricultural production, and linking urban/urbanizing landscapes with rural/agricultural landscapes to improve water quality across entire watersheds.

• Support the states and provinces in planning and adapting to water quality implications of climate change.

• Address critical water quality challenges, such harmful algal blooms, by facilitating regional forums,

including collaboratives, such as the Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Collaboratory, and participating in others, such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement’s annexes, to build consensus around shared water quality goals and associated solutions to achieve those goals.

• Advocate for refinements to U.S. federal policy and legislation to protect and improve water quality, including the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Water Resources Development Act, and the U.S. Farm Bill.

Projects Michigan Clean Water Corps (MiCorps) Overview: MiCorps is a network of volunteer water quality monitoring programs in Michigan. It was created through an executive order to assist the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in collecting and sharing water quality data for use in water resources management and protection programs. The program seeks to support and expand the number of volunteer water quality monitoring organizations statewide for the purpose of collecting, sharing, and using reliable data for surface water bodies

http://www.glc.org/work/water-quality

http://www.glc.org/work/water-quality

2

(inland lakes and streams); educating and informing the public about water quality issues; and fostering water resources stewardship to facilitate the preservation and protection of Michigan’s water resources. The GLC has served as the administrative lead for MiCorps since its creation in 2004, and is responsible for program and grants administration, program promotion, planning and facilitating the program’s annual volunteer monitoring conference, and information technology and delivery, including the online MiCorps Data Exchange platform for sharing volunteer water quality monitoring data for Michigan’s inland lakes and streams. Funder(s): Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Partners: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Huron River Watershed Council, Michigan Lake Stewardship Associations (formerly Michigan Lake and Stream Associations, Inc.), and Michigan State University. Schedule: October 2014 through June 2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Supported volunteer water quality sampling at 287 inland lakes during the 2019 spring and summer monitoring season under the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program.

• Awarded 14 small grants totaling more than $29,000 to local units of government for river and stream cleanup events.

• Will be convening the 15th annual MiCorps volunteer monitoring conference and training at the Kettunen Center in Tustin, Mich., on October 23, 2019, which will feature presentations on monitoring and citizen science initiatives as well as volunteer training from regional experts.

Lead Staff: Laura Kaminski, [email protected]. Researching the Effectiveness of Agricultural Programs (REAP) Overview: Agricultural producers in the Great Lakes basin have received over $100 million in incentives from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) since it began in 2010. To date, these targeted investments have not been comprehensively evaluated to assess their effectiveness and inform future investments in water quality. The REAP project examines the socio-economic impact of investments from GLRI-funded programs and projects aimed at increased adoption of conservation practices that improve water quality in the GLRI Priority Watersheds: Lower Fox River, WI; Saginaw River, MI; Maumee River, OH/IN/MI; and Genesee River, NY. Funder(s): U.S. EPA-Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Partners: U.S. EPA, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ohio State University, AMP Insights,; county conservation offices, NGOs, and stakeholders in GLRI priority watersheds.

Schedule: August 2017-January 2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities: Multiple reports and deliverables include:

• Three reports about farmer adoption of conservation practices and GLRI impact: o Evaluating Survey Data in the Maumee and Saginaw Watersheds (2018) looks at an evaluation of survey

data that existed in the GLRI priority watersheds before this project started. o Analysis of Interviews and Focus Groups with Farmers and Program Managers (January 2019) provides

recommendations on ways to improve future GLRI investments through distribution of GLRI funds and engagement with on-farm decision makers; includes results from 29 in-depth interviews with GLRI program managers in the four priority watersheds and eight farmer and focus groups in three of the priority watersheds (Lower Fox; Maumee; and Saginaw).

o Evaluation of New Survey Data in GLRI Priority Watersheds. (August 2019 draft) summarizes results of 2800 new farmer surveys in the four EPA priority watersheds comparing farmer adoption of conservation practices among the four GLRI priority watersheds.

• Assessment of GLRI Supported Water Quality Tools in the Great Lakes (March, 2019)



3

• A Socio-Economic Analysis of GLRI Investments and Outcomes in US EPA Priority Watersheds (Draft, July 2019) • Fall 2019 GLC staff presentations and briefings on preliminary findings and recommendations:

o November 14 presentation at federal GLRI partners meeting (NRCS, EPA, USGS, NOAA, USFWS and Great Lakes state conservationists), Indianapolis (N. Zacharda)

o November 18, 2019 presentation at Great Lakes Sedimentation Workshop, Chicago (V. Pebbles and D. Gold)

o November 19, 2019 briefing for U.S. EPA, Chicago. (V. Pebbles and D. Gold) Lead Staff: Victoria Pebbles, [email protected]. Blue Accounting’s ErieStat Overview: ErieStat is a project within the Blue Accounting initiative that will provide Lake Erie jurisdictions (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, and New York, plus both federal governments) with information services to track progress toward phosphorus reduction goals for the lake. Through an initial work group of state and federal agency representatives and leading academic institutions, the project identified initial metrics and data for tracking progress toward the 40 percent reduction goals for Lake Erie’s western and central basins. ErieStat is also supporting the efforts of the Annex 4 Subcommittee, which was established under the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to coordinate binational actions to manage phosphorus concentrations and loadings. Data supporting the selected water quality metrics has been aggregated and presented through an easy-to-understand website: www.eriestat.org. Work continues to develop protocols to track progress made by individual strategies deployed by the jurisdictions through required Domestic Action Plans. Funder(s): Erb Family Foundation and Joyce Foundation. Partners: Lake Erie state/provincial and federal governments. Schedule: June 2018-June 2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Broad updates on www.eriestat.org, June 2019, including new information on agriculture retailers efforts and updates to harmful algal bloom information

• Efforts are underway to reformat the website to improve navigation and highlight the Lake Erie Binational Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, released by the Annex 4 Subcommittee in June 2019

Lead Staff: Nicole Zacharda, [email protected]. Blue Accounting’s Source Water Initiative Overview: The Source Water Initiative (SWI) is a project within Blue Accounting initiative to help leaders set priorities and measure progress to protect drinking water at its source. “Source water” is defined as surface or groundwater prior to collection and treatment as drinking water. SWI’s work group of nearly 40 water professionals from the private, public, and non-profit sectors, representing nine out of ten Great Lakes states and provinces, identified five regional source water protection goals and three metrics to track progress toward each goal. As with other Blue Accounting pilot projects, the information is being organized around: strategies, investments, and progress. A key element of SWI is networking water professionals around the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin to showcase local innovation and craft a “common language” for tracking efforts to protect shared sources of drinking water. In the spring of 2019, the SWI team also began supporting the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Legislative Caucus in preparation for the first Patricia Birkholz Institute on Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Policy scheduled for October 25-27, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. The Birkholz Institute partnership with SWI aims to enable state and provincial legislators to work together toward a common “action agenda” for nutrient pollution which aligns neatly with





4

SWI goal to “protect sources of water from nutrient impacts”. This partnership an excellent opportunity to showcase the value of Blue Accounting as it gathers and shares strategies and investments toward nutrient control in the Basin, with progress tracked and explained for users. Funder(s): Erb Family Foundation and Joyce Foundation. Partners: Local, state/provincial, and federal governments, along with research institutions, nonprofits, and the private sector. Schedule: June 2018-June 2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Initial content launched early in 2019 • In fall 2019, SWI will launch a refreshed Steering Committee and specialty subteams with expertise

necessary to support the SWI goals related to spill prevention and response and contaminants of emerging concern GLLC Birkholz Institute, October 25-27, 2019, Detroit.

Lead Staff: Nicole Zacharda, [email protected]. Great Lakes Sediment & Nutrient Reduction Program Overview: The GLC administers the Great Lakes Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Program (GLSNRP), which provides grants to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations to implement conservation practices to reduce sediment and phosphorus runoff into the Great Lakes. In 2019, thirteen grants are being executed, focused on long-term nutrient management and conservation practice installation intended to reduce sediment and phosphorus runoff to the Great Lakes. A number of these grants will also fund stream restoration activities and the program’s first green infrastructure project (in Cook County, Minnesota). Under the guidance of a Task Force of representatives from each Great Lakes states and our federal partner agencies, the GLC team is currently overseeing 64 active grants (a number of those will be completed this fall 2019). Funder(s): USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Partners: Great Lakes states and NRCS. Schedule: Ongoing, through annual awards. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• The February 2019 Request for Proposals (under Agreement 9) received proposals from six states. 13 grants have been awarded, to projects in all six states (neither PA or IL had candidates this year)

• Website has been modernized and includes a map of active awards and pie chart of funding by state: http://www.nutrientreduction.org.

• Plans are underway for the first conference of GLSNRP grantees and partners to enable information-sharing across jurisdictions and the transfer of good ideas. The conference is tentatively planned for late August in the Oregon, Ohio (Maumee Bay) area.

Lead Staff: Nicole Zacharda, [email protected]. Targeting Outcome-Based Sediment Reduction in the Lower Fox Watershed Overview: The GLC is a subcontractor to the Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance (FWWA) to assist with certain elements of this five-year project. The goal of the project is to reduce agricultural sediment and nutrient loading to the Lower Fox River and Green Bay by installing conservation practices in key sections of Plum and Kankapot creeks. The project is testing innovative practices and monitoring the effects of those practices to guide implementation throughout the region. The GLC has assisted the FWWA by organizing annual workshops to



http://www.nutrientreduction.org/

http://www.nutrientreduction.org/



5

coordinate among GLRI grantees in Green Bay, Saginaw Bay, and Maumee River/Bay to share progress and methods for measuring ecological outcomes. Additional GLC work to support this includes development of an interactive “Story Map” to share project outcomes across the region. Funder(s): FWWA, through US-EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Partners: FWWA. Schedule: May 2015-March 2021. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• GLC convened a networking workshop for grantees working the in Green Bay, Saginaw Bay, and the Maumee River watersheds in July 2019 to share outcomes and lessons learned. This workshop was the first to take place in one of the home watersheds of our participants. Team traveled to the Green Bay area to see work and results on the ground, including opportunities to chat with local producers..

• GLC staff are also helping to build a Story Map to showcase FWWA work to improve the waters of northeast Wisconsin.

• A final networking workshop is being planned for August 2020 to coincide with the first Great Lakes Sediment & Nutrient Reduction Program conference.

Lead Staff: Nicole Zacharda, [email protected]. HABs Collaborative Overview: In partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Great Lakes Science Center, the GLC leads the Great Lakes HABs Collaborative (formerly, the HABs Collaboratory), which provides a forum for communication and coordination among scientists and between scientists and managers working on HABs in the Great Lakes. A Steering Committee and a Charter provide the structure and guide the operations of the group. An annual workplan is developed under this structure to guide priorities. https://www.glc.org/work/habs-collaboratory. The Collaborative is focused on producing high-value product for the Basin through its work this year, including the creation of a fact sheet on “who does what” across management and scientific communities relative to harmful algal blooms and a conceptual model with research catalog (potentially housed on www.blueaccounting.org) to allow resource managers to easily connect with research teams in varies areas of study. Funder(s): USGS Great Lakes Science Center. Partners: USGS Great Lakes Science Center; more than 250 scientists and practitioners from across the Great Lakes basin participate in the HABs Collaboratory. Schedule: July 2015-May 2023. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Produced a video, online at https://youtu.be/wsDCav9ytdk. • Presence at the 2019 Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography and 2019 IAGLR

conferences. • Ongoing webinar series; check website for more information. • “HABs Roadshow” allowing local Collaborative members to host events to build the conceptual model

and research catalog (currently planned for winter 2020)

Lead Staff: Nicole Zacharda, [email protected]



https://www.glc.org/work/habs-collaboratory






https://youtu.be/wsDCav9ytdk

https://youtu.be/wsDCav9ytdk



6

Great Lakes Regional Sediment Management Team Overview: The Great Lakes Regional Sediment Management Team began in 1997 as the Great Lakes Tributary Modeling program authorized under Section 516(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as amended. The purpose of this program is to provide technical assistance to local and state agencies to reduce soil erosion and sediment and pollutant loadings to Great Lakes navigation channels and Areas of Concern. In 2018, this program was rebranded as the Great Lakes Regional Sediment Management Team. Under this program, the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) provides technical and administrative support to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit Districts to advance Great Lakes regional sediment management priorities. GLC staff is responsible for program research, coordinating state involvement in the program, facilitating special projects and planning and convening an annual Great Lakes sedimentation workshop. Funder(s): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Buffalo District (LRB) (through LimnoTech, Inc., LRB’s IDIQ Contractor). Partners: USACE Buffalo, Detroit and Chicago Districts, the Great Lakes States, U.S. EPA, USDA-NRCS, USGS, and numerous academic and private sector entities. Schedule: Ongoing since 1997; current period October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019. Upcoming Activities:

• Planning is underway for the 2019 regional sediment management workshop which will be held on November 18-19, 2019 in Chicago. The workshop will focus on rural, urban and coastal sedimentation issues.

Lead Staff: Tom Crane, [email protected].



7

Water Management and Infrastructure Objective: Ensure that the waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin continue to support the needs of communities, businesses, industries and ecology; are protected from development impacts, pollution, climate change and other stressors; and are managed in a balanced and sustainable manner for the use, benefit and enjoyment of people today and future generations. More information about the GLC’s water management and infrastructure work can be found at www.glc.org/work/water-management. Strategic Actions:

• In partnership with the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers, support decision-making and measure progress under the Sustainable Water Resources Agreement and Water Resources Compact by compiling, interpreting and disseminating consistent water withdrawal, diversion and consumptive use information; supporting the cumulative impact assessment called for under the Compact and the Agreement; and providing information on regional trends and state and provincial programs, practices and policies related to water use and conservation.

• Lead and engage in the development and dissemination of data and information necessary for

implementing drinking, storm and wastewater management programs that identify critical needs and advance solutions to the benefit of public health and safety, water infrastructure and delivery, ecosystem health and water quality.

• Identify and advance solutions to water management and infrastructure challenges by facilitating forums,

initiatives and partnerships, including the GLC’s working group on water infrastructure.

• Raise awareness of the fundamental value of water and the need for infrastructure improvements by advocating for federal legislation and funding to support and accelerate drinking, storm and wastewater infrastructure improvements through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs and other water management programs and by promoting the benefits of integrating water delivery and wastewater management services to the states, provinces and municipalities in the region.

Projects Best Practices for Integrated Water Asset Management Phase 1 Overview: The GLC’s 2017 Joint Action Plan for Clean Water Infrastructure and Services in the Great Lakes Region recommends 17 actions, one of which calls for “policies and guidelines supporting water infrastructure asset inventories and asset management plans….and a regional effort to track and report on clean water infrastructure and services investments and outcomes.” The GLC is wrapping up the first phase of an intended multi-phase effort to identify, test, and promote common tools that build capacity within Great Lakes states and provinces to implement Integrated Water Asset Management (IWAM – asset management that includes drinking water, wastewater and stormwater) and to track progress on IWAM across the region. Funder(s): The Joyce Foundation; GLC General Operations. Partners: We have developed a list of key contacts from the focus groups and webinars. Contact staff for more information. Schedule: Fall 2018-Spring 2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Project was launched in winter 2018.

http://www.glc.org/work/water-management

http://www.glc.org/work/water-management

8

• A 4-part webinar series on financing, policy, technology, and program implementation integrated water asset management took place in spring 2019.

• Three focus groups were held in spring and summer in: Mississauga, ONT; Dayton, OH; and Erie, PA. • November 9 a webinar with key stakeholders and Commissioners will share draft findings and best

practices • Also in fall 2019: invite Commissioners and stakeholders to be part of a Regional Advisory Group to

craft a phase 2 proposal. Lead Staff: Victoria Pebbles, [email protected] and Dan Gold, [email protected]. Green Infrastructure Champions Overview: The GLC launched a green infrastructure (GI) champions pilot program in October 2016 to build green infrastructure capacity within small and mid-sized communities across the Great Lakes basin. The program was renewed in 2018 for another two years. Elements include workshops, a competitive small grants program, and a peer-to peer mentoring network. Funder(s): Erb Family Foundation. Partners: Credit Valley Conservation; a Regional Champions Advisory Team. Schedule: October 2018 – September 2020 (pilot program ran from October 2016 to September 2018). Recent and Upcoming Activities

• Workshops were held in Rochester, NY on May 30; Gary, IN on June 20; and Caledon, ONT on June 25.

• 23 proposals were received in response to the RFP released in April. Five grantees will receive small awards to do local code audits and related work that builds capacity for scaling up green infrastructure. 2019 awards will go to: City of Green Bay, WI; Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council (Cheboygan, MI); Red Squirrel Conservation (Kingston, ONT); Town of Lincoln, ONT; and Southern Tier Central Regional Planning & Development Board (Corning, NY).

• More than 30 entities have signed up to join the peer-to-peer mentoring work. GLC will match mentors and mentees based on need and experience to work together over the next year.

Lead Staff: Margo Davis, [email protected] Great Lakes Stormwater Collaborative Overview: In November 2017, the Great Lakes Stormwater Collaborative (GLSC) launched with the vision to advance adoption of stormwater technology and practices by addressing the gap between the supply and demand side of stormwater management. GLSC aims to provide a forum for networking, partnership building, and the exchange of information to advance the development, transfer, and deployment of innovative stormwater management technologies and practices in the binational Great Lakes Region. The Collaborative is a multi-sector coalition of stormwater management stakeholders, led by a volunteer Leadership Team, that works to regionally address the impacts of the quantity and quality of stormwater, enhance ecosystem services, reduce non-point source pollution, and promote social and economic benefits of stormwater technology and practices. Funder(s): Erb Family Foundation, Pure Oakland Water Partners: Volunteer Leadership Team Schedule: November 2017 to December 2019







9

Recent and Upcoming Activities • Hosted two webinars on stormwater management topics • A detailed map featuring innovative stormwater management sites is being prepared.

Lead Staff: Margo Davis, [email protected] Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Regional Water Use Database Overview: Through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers, the GLC manages the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Regional Water Use Database under the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Water Resources Compact and Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. In this capacity, the GLC works with its member states and provinces to collect annual water use data and issue annual water use reports and interim cumulative impact assessments. The GLC, working with the state and provincial water managers, has a goal to continuously improve the quality and usefulness of the database. Funder(s): The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers. Partners: Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers; the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence states and provinces. Schedule: Ongoing since 1987; MOU signed in 2009. Current period June 1, 2019- January 31, 2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Margo Davis, GLC project manager for water management and infrastructure, is now managing the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Regional Water Use Database and related work.

• A conference call meeting of the state and provincial water use managers was convened on July 23 to plan for the submittal of 2018 water use data and review the 2019 workplan and data submittal schedule.

• Draft water use data for 2018 were submitted to the GLC staff by August 15, 2019. This begins a four month data submittal and review process leading up to the completion of the 2018 report in December 2019.

• Water use reports for previous years are available on the GLC website at http://glc.org/work/water-use • GLC staff member Tom Crane gave a presentation on the status of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Water

Use Database to the Regional Body and Water Resources Compact Science Team on September 17 in Detroit.

Lead Staff: Margo Davis, [email protected] and Tom Crane, [email protected] Source Water Initiative The Source Water Initiative, under the umbrella of Blue Accounting, launched in May 2017 to establish goals and metrics for the desired outcome of “a safe and sustainable domestic water supply.” See the Water Quality Program update for more details.



http://glc.org/work/water-use

http://glc.org/work/water-use





10

Commercial Navigation Objective: Improve the efficiency, competitiveness, security, and sustainability of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system to support the regional and national economies of the United States and Canada. More information about the GLC’s commercial navigation work can be found at www.glc.org/work/commercial-navigation. Strategic Actions:

• Collaborate with the Regional Maritime Entity and other stakeholders to support implementation of the governors’ and premiers’ Strategy for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Maritime Transportation System with a focus on establishing a maritime careers portal; maintaining the maritime asset inventory; managing data and information to track progress in implementing the strategy; and aligning data collection and reporting with the Blue Accounting initiative.

• In collaboration with the Regional Maritime Entity and other stakeholders, identify and advocate for

priorities to maintain and strengthen the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system, including allocating funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; constructing a new large lock at the Soo Locks; dredging to maintain authorized depths of channels and harbors and additional depth needed in critical areas; repairing and investing in aging navigation infrastructure; ensuring adequate icebreaking capacity; developing sustainable strategies for managing dredged material; and supporting the development of technologies to improve the system’s environmental performance.

• Convene or participate in regional partnerships, forums, and initiatives related to the Great Lakes-St.

Lawrence River maritime transportation system, including the Regional Maritime Entity, Great Lakes Dredging Team, Great Ships Initiative, and the Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition.

Projects Blue Accounting Maritime Transportation Project

Overview: This project is using the Blue Accounting framework and web platform to collect and present data and information to track progress in achieving the goals laid out in the governors’ and premiers’ 2016 Strategy for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Maritime Transportation System. In 2017 Blue Accounting updated cargo volume data and a maritime asset inventory and presented this information on the Blue Accounting Maritime Transportation platform (https://www.blueaccounting.org/issue/maritime-transportation). Moving forward, the GLC’s Blue Accounting team will work with leaders from the maritime industry to identify and track additional economic and environmental metrics that show progress toward goals established in the regional maritime strategy. Funder(s): Herrick Foundation. Partners: Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers and multiple U.S and Canadian maritime stakeholders serving on the Maritime Transportation Work Group. Schedule: The second phase of the project began in September 2019 and will be completed by June 2020 with the release of updated data on current maritime performance metrics and new metrics, along with updated information on the status of maritime strategies and investments. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• In June 2019 released an expanded web platform that synthesizes data and information on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system.

http://www.glc.org/work/commercial-navigation




https://www.blueaccounting.org/issue/maritime-transportation

https://www.blueaccounting.org/issue/maritime-transportation

11

• Reported on six key economic and environmental maritime performance metrics (cargo tonnage; cargo value; container cargo volume; growth in cruise tourism; reliability of navigation locks; and participation in the Green Marine Environmental Performance Certification Program).

• Presented a comprehensive summary of strategies and investments for strengthening the maritime transportation system.

• Maritime Transportation Work Group to be convened to identify new performance metrics and options for improved reporting on existing metrics; assess key target audiences and their information needs; and other priorities for the next phase of the project.

Lead Staff: Matt Doss, [email protected]. Great Lakes Dredging Team (GLDT) Overview: The GLDT serves as a forum for both governmental and non-governmental Great Lakes dredging interests to discuss the region’s dredging needs. In collaboration with its partners, the GLDT supports timely, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable dredging practices at U.S. harbors and channels throughout the Great Lakes, connecting channels and tributaries. The GLC staff, serving as secretariat to the GLDT, coordinates, plans, facilitates and organizes all aspects of the work of the GLDT including staffing of three standing committees, promoting the work of the GLDT through education and outreach and convening two full meetings of the GLDT each year. Funder(s): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Buffalo District (LRB) (through LimnoTech, Inc., LRB’s IDIQ Contractor). Partners: Great Lakes States, Lake Carriers Association, U.S. EPA, USACE, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. DOT-Maritime Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and several Great Lakes Ports. Schedule: Ongoing since 1997; current period January 1, 2019-December 31, 2019. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Convened the 2019 GLDT Annual Meeting on June 10-11, 2019 in Buffalo. • Developed, reviewed and finalized 2019-2020 workplans for the GLDT Outreach and Technical

Committees. • Conducted the election for new officers and committee co-chairs at the 2019 Annual Meeting • Will convene an informational webinar on October 23 to discuss the US Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) Section 408 policy which establishes the process and criteria the USACE uses to review requests to alter Civil Works projects, including those involved in dredging and dredged material management.

• Will convene the fall semiannual webinar of the full GLDT in December 2019. Lead Staff: Tom Crane, [email protected]. Additional Program Activities

• The GLC has hired a neutral, third‐party convener to design an inclusive process to engage a broad range of participants in constructive, forward‐looking dialogue regarding ballast water regulations, including implementation of the 2018 U.S. Vessel Incidental Discharge Act and recently released draft Canadian ballast water regulations. The third‐party team will present its early findings and recommendations to the Commission at the upcoming annual meeting in Québec City. The consensus‐building process is intended to identify areas of agreement, disagreement and misunderstanding, and establish agreed‐upon facts and information to inform development of harmonized binational ballast water policy, including rulemaking efforts and implementation in both Canada and the United States.





12

• In September the GLC submitted comments on Transport Canada’s proposed Ballast Water Regulations as published in the Canada Gazette. The GLC urged Transport Canada to pursue a structured dialogue among key participants to identify areas of agreement on performance standards and applicability; treatment technologies and best management practices; monitoring, inspections and compliance requirements; timing, flexibility and transparent communication; and needed innovations. The ultimate goal is to establish compatible regulations throughout the Great Lakes Basin.

• In August the GLC collaborated with the American Great Lakes Ports Association and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities to convene a webinar to showcase the Port of Rotterdam’s Pronto vessel management system.

• In August the GLC executive director, Darren Nichols, presented at the annual meeting of the American Great Lakes Ports Association on the GLC’s maritime transportation work.

• The GLC is contracting with CPCS, a transportation consulting firm, to evaluate the value proposition of a port data system for Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System ports. It will be completed by December 2019.

13

Economic Development and Waterfront Community Revitalization Objective: Support the efforts of the states and provinces in collaboration with federal agencies, local communities, and nongovernmental stakeholders to restore and revitalize waterfront areas and advance policies, programs and funding to leverage water resources to support a strong regional economy and high quality of life. More information can be found at www.glc.org/work/economic-development. Strategic Actions:

• Support research, disseminate information, and collaborate with regional leaders to quantify the economic value of Great Lakes water resources, the return on investments in environmental restoration and water-related infrastructure, and the ecosystem benefits and services generated by the Great Lakes, and facilitate a cooperative, regional approach to advancing the “Blue Economy.”

• Support the work of the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers’ regional

economic task force and collaborate with other partners such as the Council of Great Lakes Industries and the Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition, to strengthen water-related infrastructure, industries and commerce and facilitate a cooperative approach to improve regional economic performance and competitiveness.

• Support implementation of the GLRI and other regional programs to clean up and restore waterfront

areas, and advance policies, funding and information exchange to assist the states, provinces and local communities in strategically leveraging water resources to strengthen local economies and provide benefits for residents and visitors.

• Advocate with Congress and federal agencies for programs, policies and funding that support state and

local efforts to clean up and revitalize waterfront areas, including the GLRI, Coastal Zone Management Act, National Sea Grant College Program, and brownfields redevelopment programs, and assist in effectively implementing these programs and linking them with state and provincial priorities.

• Collaborate with other water-related commissions in the U.S., Canada, and abroad to share information,

exchange strategies, and advance common goals directed at solving problems affecting water resources and leveraging them as vital regional assets.

Projects Determining the Economic Impact of Great Lakes Restoration Overview: The GLC and the Council of Great Lakes Industries completed a project to develop a comprehensive estimate of the economic impact of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) using metrics such as regionwide economic activity triggered by GLRI project spending, growth in regional tourism, and improved quality of life as demonstrated by residential house value impacts. The project includes case study narratives to illustrate economic impacts in specific communities, including Waukegan, IL, Muskegon, MI, Detroit, MI, Duluth MN/Superior, WI, Sheboygan, WI, Ashtabula, OH, Erie, PA, and Buffalo, NY. The main, high-level result of the study is that every dollar spent on GLRI projects between 2010 and 2015 will generate a total of $3.35 of additional economic activity through 2036. The additional economic activity includes the direct impact of the GLRI project spend; additional economic activity from increased and enhanced tourism; and an estimate of the future impact of improving the region’s quality of life. The final study, summary report, case studies, and other materials are online at https://www.glc.org/work/blue-economy/GLRI-economic-impact. A follow-up workshop was convened July 15 with the project team, advisory committee and regional thought leaders to assess gaps and unmet needs related to the Blue Economy, and to establish a research and action agenda for future work in this area.

http://www.glc.org/work/economic-development

http://www.glc.org/work/economic-development

https://www.glc.org/work/blue-economy/GLRI-economic-impact

https://www.glc.org/work/blue-economy/GLRI-economic-impact

14

Funder(s): C.S. Mott, Wege, Joyce and Erb Family foundations, Fund for Lake Michigan, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Partners: Council of Great Lakes Industries, Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition, Alliance for the Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation-Great Lakes Regional Center, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes, and the University of Michigan Water Center. Schedule: June 2017 through December 2019. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Presented the study results in a briefing for Congressional staff; at the annual conference for the Great Lakes Areas of Concern program; and at the annual meeting of the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus.

• Convened a workshop with approximately 80 thought leaders from across the region to establish a research and action agenda to advance the Blue Economy in the Great Lakes region. The action agenda is being drafted now and will be released by the end of the Calendar year.

Lead Staff: Matt Doss, [email protected]. Support for the 2019 Annual Conference for the U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern Program Overview: The GLC assisted in planning and convening the 2019 Annual Conference for the U.S. Great Lakes AOC program sponsored U.S. EPA and the Ohio Lake Erie Commission, in partnership with Ohio EPA, held Sept. 11-12 in Cleveland, Ohio. Among other tasks, the GLC managed registration and administering funding to support participation in the conference by local AOC leaders. Funder(s): Ohio Lake Erie Commission. Partners: U.S. EPA, Ohio Lake Erie Commission and Ohio EPA. Schedule: The conference was held September 11-12; all remaining work will be completed by the end of November. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Managed registration and conference logistics for the AOC conference, which was attended by approximately 350 AOC leaders from across the region.

• Administered travel funding to enable local AOC leaders to attend the conference. • Assisted U.S. EPA and the Ohio Lake Erie Commission with conference planning, promotion,

facilitation and other tasks. Lead Staff: Matt Doss, [email protected]. Study of Socio-Economic Benefits from Cleanup Efforts in the Muskegon Lake AOC Overview: As part of the 2016 Regional Partnership with NOAA (described below in the Coastal Conservation and Habitat Restoration Program update), the GLC coordinated a study of socio-economic benefits from restoration efforts in the Muskegon Lake AOC in Michigan. The study was conducted by faculty with Grand Valley State University (GVSU) and complemented a similar study completed in 2011 by GVSU that projected a 6-to-1 return on investment from the $10 million NOAA-Recovery Act funded habitat restoration project for Muskegon Lake coordinated by the GLC. Funder(s): The 2016 NOAA-GLC Regional Partnership, which is funded through the GLRI. Partners: NOAA, GVSU.





15

Schedule: A final report was completed, reviewed by GLC and NOAA, and is under preparation for a public release with a coordinated press release. Results of the study were presented at the 2019 International Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR) conference. Recent and Upcoming Activities: • The GVSU team completed produced a final report that was reviewed by partners. • The final report will be released in coordination with NOAA and GVSU. Lead Staff: Eric Ellis, [email protected].

16

Coastal Conservation and Habitat Restoration Objective: Conserve coastal ecosystem functions and values that contribute to the diversity, resilience, and economy of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin by protecting natural communities that sustain populations of desirable fish and wildlife species; restoring degraded areas; and managing coastal resources to improve ecosystem services while supporting sustainable economic development. More information about the GLC’s coastal conservation and habitat restoration work can be found at www.glc.org/work/habitat. Strategic Actions:

• Lead and support regional programs that restore, protect and manage valuable habitat and water resources through implementation of the NOAA-GLC Regional Partnership in Areas of Concern, and in coordination with U.S. EPA, NOAA, the states and provinces, and local organizations.

• Elevate awareness of coastal conservation issues among decision-makers, managers, researchers, and the public by convening meetings, coordinating action, and developing communication products such as websites, webinars, and publications.

• Explore and develop data and information-sharing opportunities to support ongoing coastal wetland restoration prioritization; contribute to decision-making; and measure progress on coastal conservation and habitat restoration across the region.

• Communicate with partners, including U.S. EPA, NOAA, USGS, NRCS, Great Lakes Fishery

Commission, Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex 7 Subcommittee to ensure effective coordination and collaboration with state and provincial agencies, agriculture producers, conservation groups, and local partners in support of sound land management practices and strategically-targeted fish and wildlife restoration and conservation actions.

• Advocate for legislation and funding for federal programs, policies, and laws, such as the GLRI, Great

Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, and Farm Bill, and support their effective implementation and alignment with state and provincial priorities.

Projects NOAA Regional Partnership to Support Habitat Restoration in Areas of Concern Overview: The GLC is leading two NOAA Regional Partnerships under the GLRI to support habitat restoration in Great Lakes AOCs. The 2016 Regional Partnership is ongoing and has provided $10.2 million to support habitat restoration in the Muskegon Lake and Clinton River AOCs in Michigan, the Maumee and Cuyahoga river AOCs in Ohio; a socio-economic study on the impacts of restoration in the Muskegon Lake AOC; and communications videos about restoration work in Great Lakes AOCs. In August the GLC was awarded additional support under NOAA’s 2019 Regional Partnership Program. The awards under the new partnership will continue to address AOC needs and also expand work into priority coastal areas outside of AOCs. The GLC proposal included priority projects recommended by four states. Funder(s): National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with funding from the GLRI. Partners: NOAA, U.S. EPA, Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, Summit Metroparks, City of Toledo, Audubon Great Lakes, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Forest Preserves of Cook County, and Ohio EPA.

http://www.glc.org/work/habitat

http://www.glc.org/work/habitat

17

Schedule: The 2016 Regional Partnership is ongoing until December of 2021. The 2019 Regional Partnership began in August of 2019. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• The final report for the socio-economic study conducted by Grand Valley State University will be made public by the end of the summer.

• Three restoration project videos are in production and will make their debut during regional events including the AOC Conference in Cleveland in September.

• Continued engineering and design work for a project at the Cascade Valley Metropark on the Cuyahoga River in Ohio with funding from the 2016 Regional Partnership. The project will restore 50 acres of floodplain and 5,000 linear feet of the Cuyahoga River. The implementation phase of this project has been funded by the 2019 Regional Partnership.

• Continued implementation of five projects in the Muskegon Lake AOC, including work on planning for long-term restoration management, engineering and design for extensive restoration at two new locations, and conducting ecological monitoring of previous activities.

• Initiated engineering and design for the Penn 7 project in the Maumee River AOC under the 2016 Regional Partnership. This project will ultimately result in restoration of fish habitat, restoration of open water and emergent wetland, and increased fish nursery habitat on a 59-acre parcel along the river. The implementation phase of this project has been funded by the 2019 Regional Partnership.

• Will begin final engineering and design for the Powderhorn Lake project near the Calumet River AOC in Northeast Illinois. This project will re-establish a hydrologic connection between Powderhorn Lake and Wolf Lake to the north, and ultimately, to Lake Michigan.

Lead Staff: Eric Ellis, [email protected]. Great Lakes Coastal Assembly Overview: The GLC was on the steering committee of the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) and participated in the Coastal Conservation Working Group. Funding for the LCC was eliminated in 2018 and the program has been dissolved. A group of partners, including multiple states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, explored various opportunities to retain the benefits of the program and continue with many of the program goals, which led to the creation of the Great Lakes Coastal Assembly. Funder(s): Currently very limited funding from non-GLC sources for meetings and logistics. Partners: NOAA, U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Audubon Great Lakes, 7 of 8 Great Lakes states, ECCC, USGS, ACOE, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and many others. Schedule: The steering committee has periodic conference calls, otherwise activities are planned on an as-needed basis. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• The Assembly created a charter with a stated purpose to 1) promote collaborations aimed at management, restoration, and conservation of coastal areas; 2) assist organizations in assessing where investments should be made and aligning investments with regional, state, and local goals; and 3) identify needs for science and decision support and enable actions that help coastal managers make effective decisions.

• GLC is actively taking part in this group and will continue to cooperate with partners on priority coastal issues and regularly scheduled meetings. GLC staff attended the first meeting of the Assembly in Marquette in April. A number of working groups have been established.

• GLC staff are cochairing the upcoming Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Symposium, sponsored by the Assembly, which took place in Toledo in September. The Penn 7 restoration project site will be a highlighted field trip that will propose questions to attendees and solicit feedback on the design of the



18

restoration work to be done. GLC staff are also participating with the Blue Accounting Coastal Wetlands working group.

Lead Staff: Eric Ellis, [email protected]. NOAA Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Grant to Support the St. Clair-Detroit River System (SCDRS) Coastal Restoration Initiative Overview: The goal of this NOAA grant program is to provide financial and technical assistance to habitat restoration projects that meet both NOAA's mission to restore coastal habitats and support the GLRI goal to protect and restore habitats in order to sustain healthy populations of native fish species in the eight U.S. Great Lakes states. The GLC worked with a variety of partners to submit the St. Clair-Detroit River System Coastal Restoration Initiative proposal in March 2018. Funder(s): NOAA, with funding from GLRI. Partners: NOAA, Chesterfield Township (Macomb County, MI), Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Schedule: The grant was awarded in August 2018 and has a three-year duration, with the opportunity to add additional projects in years two and three. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• $1.624 million was awarded for two projects in 2018, which are currently being implemented. o Lake Erie Metropark Shoreline Restoration Project with the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan

Authority in Wayne County, MI; 1,183 lf of hardened shoreline and 1.7 acres of Lake Erie coastal marsh will be restored by softening the shoreline and creating a network of shallow pools and channels within the coastal wetland.

o Brandenburg Park Shoreline Restoration Engineering and Design project with Chesterfield Township in Macomb County, Michigan. This design process will lead to the eventual restoration of 740 lf of hardened shoreline and 1.5 acres of nearshore habitat at Lake St. Clair.

• $750,091 in funding was awarded in August 2019 for year two implementation of the Brandenburg Park Shoreline Restoration project.

Lead Staff: Eric Ellis, [email protected]. Additional Program Activities

• A final Data Sharing page on the GLC website will be available before the end of 2019. This page will share monitoring data and final restoration metrics for completed projects funded by the 2013 Regional Partnership. Monitoring data and restoration metrics for the 2016 and 2019 Regional Partnership projects will be added as they are completed.

• Program staff began attending and assisting with the organization of a federal agency working group to review and make recommendations on the restoration of nearshore habitat and reef systems.





19

Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Control Objective: Prevent the introduction and spread, and when necessary, advance the management and control of aquatic invasive species, that are or have the potential to negatively impact water resources or the economy of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. More information can be found at https://www.glc.org/work/invasive-species. Strategic Actions:

• Develop and promote communication products and services, including websites, webinars, and publications (e.g., Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions) that provide AIS information and advance progress on AIS prevention and control.

• Develop and promote the use of adaptive management frameworks and data and information integration

platforms in order to support decision making (including evaluating costs and benefits) and measure progress on AIS prevention and control across the region.

• Facilitate regional forums and collaboratives working to advance effective and coordinated approaches to AIS prevention and control, including the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, the Chicago Area Waterway System Advisory Committee, and the Great Lakes Phragmites and Invasive Mussel collaboratives, among others.

• Collaborate with other partner groups engaged in AIS prevention and control to support and advance common AIS priorities, including the GLWQA Annex 6 Subcommittee, the Conference of Great Lakes Governors and Premiers AIS Task Force, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the International Joint Commission, the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and other regional ANS panels, among others.

• Advocate for legislation and funding to support effective implementation of federal programs, policies

and laws, such as the National Invasive Species Act, Lacey Act, GLRI, and Asian Carp Action Plan.

• Lead regional projects that advance policies and solutions to reduce the risk of AIS introduction and spread through priority pathways including internet sales of organisms in trade, canals and waterways and ballast water.

Projects Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species Overview: The federal Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 called on the GLC to convene a panel of Great Lakes agencies and private, environmental, tribal and commercial interests to identify priorities for the Great Lakes region (including the eight Great Lakes states) with respect to nonindigenous aquatic invasive species (AIS); make recommendations to the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) regarding its own program initiatives; assist the ANSTF in coordinating federal aquatic nuisance species program activities in the Great Lakes; coordinate non-federal programs within the region; provide advice to public and private individuals and entities concerning methods of controlling AIS; and report to the ANSTF on activities within the Great Lakes related to AIS prevention, research and control. Funder(s): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Partners: Great Lakes Panel (GLP) members: https://www.glc.org/work/glpans/members Schedule: Ongoing.

https://www.glc.org/work/invasive-species

https://www.glc.org/work/invasive-species

https://www.glc.org/work/glpans/members

https://www.glc.org/work/glpans/members

20

Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Convened a GLP meeting in May 2019 in Cleveland. • Planning the next GLP meeting for November 2019 in Ann Arbor. • Establishing an ad hoc committee on the organisms in trade pathway. • Providing input to NOAA GLERL on the updates to the Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species

Information System, including development of an AIS risk assessment clearinghouse. • Participated in the May 2019 ANSTF meeting and provided input to the ANSTF on development of the

next ANSTF Strategic Plan. Lead Staff: Erika Jensen, [email protected]. Invasive Mussel Collaborative Overview: The Invasive Mussel Collaborative (IMC) is working to advance scientifically sound technology for invasive mussel control to produce measurable ecological and economic benefits. The IMC provides a framework for communication and coordination and is identifying the needs and objectives of resource managers; prioritizing the supporting science; implementing communication strategies; and aligning science and management goals into a common agenda for invasive mussel control. Funder(s): U.S. Geological Survey via the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Partners: U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Schedule: Ongoing (Five-year agreement with USGS through 2023; current funding through May 31, 2020). Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Implemented a control method demonstration and evaluation project near Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore to begin implementation of the Strategy.

• Convened a meeting in September 2019 in Traverse City to advance IMC activities. • Continued to develop and improve a summary document of available control methods and associated

literature, case studies and permitting information. • Hosted a webinar to discuss invasive mussel impacts on native fish.

Lead Staff: Erika Jensen, [email protected]. Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative Overview: The GLC and USGS are jointly leading a regional partnership – the Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative (GLPC) – to improve communication and collaboration leading to more coordinated, efficient and strategic approaches to non-native Phragmites across the Great Lakes basin. The GLPC provides educational resources tailored to diverse interest groups, connects invasive species managers with the latest research and technology, encourages the use of adaptive management, and facilitates alignment of partner efforts across jurisdictional barriers. Funder(s): U.S. Geological Survey via the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Partners: U.S. Geological Survey. Schedule: Ongoing (Five-year agreement with USGS through 2023; current funding through May 31, 2019).





21

Recent and Upcoming Activities: • Advanced a Common Agenda to guide the work of the GLPC based on the principles of collective

impact. • Continued to refine measurement system to evaluate the progress of the GLPC. • Shared the work of the GLPC as a novel application of collective impact to the natural resources field at

prominent events including the Natural Areas Association conference and North American Invasive Species Management Association conference.

• Regularly convened an Advisory Committee to guide the work of the GLPC and foster inter-jurisdictional partnerships.

• Hosted an ongoing webinar series where guest speakers shared successful models for Phragmites management, public outreach, and collaborative governance.

• Convened the Phragmites Symbiosis Collaborative, a forum for researchers to share and collaborate on their microbial or genetic research.

• Re-structured the GLPC website (www.greatlakesphragmites.net) to better direct visitors to resources specific to their needs.

• Developed audience-specific outreach materials across various multi-media formats.

Lead Staff: Erika Jensen, [email protected] and Elaine Ferrier, [email protected]. Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework (PAMF) Overview: The GLC and USGS are working to promote effective Phragmites management across the Great Lakes basin and track the effectiveness and resource efficiency of those management activities through the PAMF model. PAMF requires working with a variety of Phragmites managers across the basin, from state and federal employees to private citizens, in a strategic attempt to engage, learn from, and assist all levels of Phragmites managers. Funder(s): U.S. Geological Survey via the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Partners: U.S. Geological Survey and University of Georgia. Schedule: Ongoing (Five-year agreement with USGS through 2023; current funding through May 31, 2020). Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Conducted six training sessions across the Great Lakes basin to educate Phragmites managers about PAMF and encourage their participation; reached over 100 individuals from a wide variety of organizations.

• Traveled to new management units and worked with managers to enroll their units into PAMF and assist with the initial monitoring.

• Provided management guidance for 118 enrolled management units. • Working daily with USGS and University of Georgia partners to effectively coordinate efforts. • Developed a system to house and store PAMF data that is used for each year's model run. • Attended five conferences and a dozen outreach events; gave five oral presentations, hosted one booth,

and delivered one poster presentation. Additional conference, booths, and presentations are planned for the upcoming funding year.

• Implemented a formal plan for outreach activities for the 2019/20 PAMF cycle. • Planning training sessions in regions of the Great Lakes basin with low PAMF representation. • Working with USGS to create a strategic plan to guide the continued success of the PAMF program; the

plan will identify program goals, needs, and agency responsibilities. • Currently enrolling new management units for the 2020/2021 PAMF cycle year - contact the PAMF

Coordinator at [email protected].

http://www.greatlakesphragmites.net/

http://www.greatlakesphragmites.net/







22

Lead Staff: Erika Jensen, [email protected] and Samantha Tank, [email protected]. Interstate Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention, Early Detection, and Response (Phase III) Overview: The GLC is supporting the eight Great Lakes states in their efforts to plan and coordinate interstate aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention, early detection, and response activities. During the third phase of this effort, the GLC will work with the interstate team to review existing communication plans and protocols related to AIS surveillance and response, and use lessons learned from previous response exercises to develop a draft plan for communication of surveillance data and response actions. The GLC will also be coordinating a response exercise with a focus on communications under different scenario conditions (e.g. different taxa, multijurisdictional waters). Funder(s): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through Michigan EGLE under the GLRI. Partners: Michigan EGLE, The Nature Conservancy, and other state, provincial and federal agencies. Schedule: October 2018 through December 2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Kicked off phase III of the effort focused on communications planning and building response capacity • Convened an AIS surveillance planning meeting in March 2019 between the states, provinces and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to review priority species and sites for the 2019 monitoring year • Conducted a review of monitoring and response communications protocols to inform communications

planning for the interstate team

Lead Staff: Erika Jensen, [email protected]. Great Lakes Detector of Invasive Aquatics in Trade Overview: The GLC developed the web-based software tool Great Lakes Detector of Invasive Aquatics in Trade (GLDIATR), which collects, analyzes and allows users to access information about how many and what types of Great Lakes AIS are available for sale on the Internet. This information is being used by invasive species managers to inform and help target a variety of activities, including outreach and education, risk assessment, monitoring and surveillance, and enforcement. Funder(s): U.S. EPA under the GLRI, Michigan DNR, Wisconsin DNR. Partners: State, provincial and federal AIS managers. Schedule: May 2016 through April 2019. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Working with a multi-stakeholder advisory board to oversee implementation of GLDIATR. • Working with a contractor to complete upgrades to the GLDIATR system, including a case management

system to facilitate coordination and cooperation in enforcement between state agencies. • Providing information and user accounts to managers and other interested parties.

Lead Staff: Erika Jensen, [email protected]. Blue Accounting Aquatic Invasive Species Pilot Overview: The GLC is working with The Nature Conservancy to develop and implement an AIS pilot project under the Blue Accounting program. The AIS pilot is focused on surveillance and rapid response to new species introductions; the organisms in trade pathway of spread; and control and management of invasive species. The









23

GLC and TNC are working with a group of regional AIS experts and managers to provide input and guide implementation of the AIS pilot. Funder(s): The Nature Conservancy (with funding from the Mott Foundation and other private foundations). Partners: The Nature Conservancy. Schedule: Ongoing. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Transitioned leadership of the pilot from TNC to GLC. • Released new content for the AIS pilot webpage (https://www.blueaccounting.org/issue/aquatic-

invasive-species) focused on early detection of AIS. • Convened an in-person meeting of the pilot work group in March 2019 to review existing web content

and develop additional metrics. Lead Staff: Erika Jensen, [email protected]. Invasive Species and the Chicago Area Waterway System

Overview: The GLC engages with a 30-member Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Invasive Species Stakeholder Group (formerly referred to as the advisory committee) that is the primary regional stakeholder forum seeking solutions to the threat of Asian carp and other AIS passing through the Chicago Area Waterways System (CAWS) while maintaining current uses of the system. Funder(s): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Joyce Foundation Partners: A broad array of Chicago/Northwest Indiana and regional organizations serve on the CAWS AIS Stakeholder Group, with the associated resource group including federal and state agencies. Schedule: The GLC has transitioned out of its role supporting the group, which is now supported by the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC). The group met on Oct. 1 in Chicago. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Developed a contract with the NIRPC to take over facilitation and convening of the group. • Worked with NIRPC staff to transition facilitation and convening activities for the group. • Participated in Steering Committee calls. • In July the GLC provided neutral, third-party facilitation for a two-day meeting of the Great Lakes states

and provinces to discuss the Army Corps of Engineers proposed project at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam. The meeting included presentation and discussion with the Corps on the project and discussion among the states and provinces on arrangements for continued dialogue and decision-making on key issues, including options for nonfederal sponsor arrangements for the project.

Lead Staff: Matt Doss, [email protected]. Additional Program Activities

• Participated as a member of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex 6 (AIS) Subcommittee. Lead staff: Erika Jensen.

• Supported planning and coordination of “AIS landing blitz” event that was held in June-July 2019 to educate boaters, anglers and other recreational users on steps they can take to prevent the movement of AIS. Lead staff: Erika Jensen.

• Participated on the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee and the Executive Steering Committee for the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study. Lead staff: Matt Doss.

https://www.blueaccounting.org/issue/aquatic-invasive-species








24

Information Management and Blue Accounting Objective: The GLC’s member states and provinces have access to high-quality, curated information about Great Lakes issues from a neutral and authoritative source. More information on the GLC’s information management and Blue Accounting work is available at www.glc.org/work/info-management. Strategic Actions:

• Deliver consistent, continuous, and unbiased information to the GLC’s member states and provinces on issues and outcomes of mutual interest and concern, including the support of other GLC Program Areas described in the Strategic Plan.

• Establish Blue Accounting as the leading information service to track the region’s progress toward shared goals and outcomes using consistent data, metrics, and methods working with The Nature Conservancy and other partners in both countries. Specifically, provide support to the Source Water Initiative and ErieStat, described in the Water Quality Program Area, as Blue Accounting pilot projects.

• Develop and maintain mutually-beneficial relationships with agencies and entities across the region in

both nations at federal, state, provincial, tribal/First Nations, local, and municipal scales to coordinate information management and provide information to the GLC for use by its members.

• Support and enhance the efforts of Annex 10 of the GLWQA, the IJC’s Science Priority Committee and

the Great Lakes Advisory Board’s Science and Information Subcommittee to improve information coordination and flow between entities and agencies in the Great Lakes region.

• Coordinate and provide information to support spill prevention and response programs working with

U.S. EPA across the Great Lakes basin and continuing current work with the Region 5 Regional Response Team to build intergovernmental relationships that improve planning and make response efforts more efficient.

• Provide facilitation and information management services to support development of strategies and

policies to ensure protection of the region’s water resources in the context of increases in North American oil production and associated oil transportation to and through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River region.

Projects Blue Accounting Initiative Overview: A 2013 request from the Great Lakes governors and premiers called for a common approach to monitoring Great Lakes water resources and looked to the GLC for solutions. In 2014 a group of regional thought leaders, convened by GLC, responded to the governors’ and premiers’ resolution by proposing a framework for convening collaboratives around desired outcomes for the Great Lakes, and creating shared regional goals and measures of progress toward these goals. That framework is Blue Accounting. Launched in 2015, Blue Accounting uses a regional online platform—or web site—to showcase the goals, strategies, metrics, investments and results developed under the Blue Accounting framework. Blue Accounting is currently piloting five “issues” to demonstrate the value and ability of convening regional collaboratives to set shared goals, select metrics for measuring progress toward those shared goals, and share the results (via well-vetted data and information) on a publicly accessible web site. Five pilots are actively underway addressing: coastal wetlands; invasive species; phosphorus control in Lake Erie; source water protection; and maritime transportation. (See other program area updates for details about the individual pilot projects.)

http://www.glc.org/work/info-management

http://www.glc.org/work/info-management

25

Funder(s): The Nature Conservancy, The Herrick Foundation; The Fred A. and Barbara M. Erb Family Foundation; The Joyce Foundation. Partners: Since its launch in 2015, Blue Accounting has been implemented as a partnership that is jointly managed by the GLC and TNC through a memorandum of agreement and has benefited from support from David McLean, Business IT Director for Dow Chemical, who has provided business development and technical advice. In addition, an advisory committee supports the initiative with representation from state, federal and local governments, business, academia, and NGOs from the Great Lakes basin. Schedule: Ongoing. Most grant funding extends through mid-2020. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• GLC and TNC have developed and begun executing a plan to transition the initiative from a partnership between GLC and TNC to it being governed and managed solely by GLC. The transition is expected to be completed by the end of GLC FY2020.

• GLC Commissioners are expected play a much stronger role in the initiative governance beginning late 2019.

• An updated five-year business plan for Blue Accounting was completed summer 2019 which will guide blue accounting through 2023.

• Eric Brown has joint the GLC as Senior Advisor for External Relations and will take over many of activities formerly led by Tawny Mata who was Strategic Engagement Director for Blue Accounting

Lead Staff: Victoria Pebbles, [email protected]. Inland Sensitivity Atlas (Area Contingency Planning) Overview: GLC staff maintain the Inland Sensitivity Atlas (ISA) data for Michigan, Ohio and Indiana under a contract with U.S. EPA Region 5. The ISA is a set of GIS layers delivered through a web mapping application, providing contingency planners and emergency responders with accurate and relevant sensitive information for spill preparedness and response. GLC staff work on contingency planning with U.S. EPA On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and local agencies to develop plans in three Indiana subareas: the Patoka River Planning Area supporting the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area; the White River sub-area planning area, which consists of five counties, including and upstream of Indianapolis; and the Northwest Indiana Planning Area, which includes the watersheds touching Lake Michigan in three Indiana Counties. A goal of this activity is to develop best practices for sub-area plans throughout the Great Lakes states. GLC works closely with OSCs and U.S. EPA Planners to develop map products, datasets, and documents supporting contingency planning within the region. GLC also participates in semi-annual meetings for Region 5’s Regional Response Team (RRT). Funder(s): U.S. EPA Region 5. Partners: Region 5 Regional Response Team (RRT), Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) in Minnesota, and TetraTech. Schedule: Ongoing since 2001; current period October 2018 through September 2023. Recent and Upcoming Activities:

• Created map layers representing areas with specific language describing response jurisdictions for inclusion in state map viewers. Attended meetings and worked on contingency planning for the White River and Northwest Indiana sub-areas.

• Currently updating the Indiana ISA data for incorporation into the regional ISA geodatabase. • Attended two meetings of the Region 5 RRT in October 2018 and April 2019

Lead Staff: Tom Crane, [email protected] and David Betcher, [email protected].





mailto:dbetcher@

mailto:dbetcher@

26

Policy Coordination and Advocacy Progress on the GLC’s 2019 Federal Priorities The centerpieces of the GLC’s policy coordination and advocacy program are its annual legislative priorities statement and Great Lakes Day in Washington. The 2019 statement, Investing in a National Asset: A Leadership Agenda for Great Lakes Restoration and Economic Revitalization, was released in March 2019 at Great Lakes Day and is guiding the GLC’s advocacy activities. The top priorities for 2019 are:

• Fully fund the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to help communities clean up degraded areas and create new economic opportunities along their waterfronts.

• Modernize water infrastructure and safeguard drinking water to protect public health, support business and industry, and help revitalize communities.

• Strengthen the Great Lakes navigation system to support the national economy, create jobs, and reduce traffic congestion.

• Protect against invasive species like Asian carp, zebra mussels and sea lamprey. • Promote agricultural conservation to protect water quality and prevent harmful algal blooms. • Coordinate federal programs to manage information and ensure regional accountability.

As in recent years, the GLC also partnered with a number of regional agencies and organization on a joint statement of common regional priorities. These priorities are consistent with those presented in the GLC’s statement and help demonstrate broad-based support for key priorities for the Great Lakes. Final FY 2018 and 2019 Appropriations for Major Great Lakes Programs, President’s FY 2020 Budget Request, and Status of Congressional Action on FY 2020 Appropriations The following table presents final FY 2018 and FY 2019 appropriations (in millions of dollars) for selected Great Lakes programs, the President’s budget request for FY 2020, and Congressional action to date on FY 2020 appropriations. There has been no action to date in Congress on FY 2020 appropriations bills. Updated October 1, 2019

Program FY 2018

Final Appropriations

FY 2019 Final

Appropriations

FY 2020 Budget Request

Congressional Actions to Date on FY 2020 Appropriations

Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab No detail provided $8.6 No detail provided

House passed: No detail provided Senate committee passed: No detail

Chicago Sanitary Canal Dispersal Barrier $16.7 $18.9 $13.94 House passed: $13.94 Senate passed: $13.94

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund $1,400 $1,550 $965 House passed: $1,697 Senate passed: $1,670

Great Lakes/Miss River Interbasin Study $1.85 $0.2 $.05 House passed: $.05 Senate passed: $.05

Soo Lock Construction N/A $65 $75.3 House passed: $75.3 Senate passed: $75.3

Clean Water State Revolving Fund $1,694 $1,694 $1,119.8 House passed: $1,784 Senate committee passed: $1,638

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund $1,163 $1,164 $863.2 House passed: $1,300 Senate committee passed: $1,126

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative $300 $300 $30 House passed: $320 Senate committee passed: $301

BEACH Grants $9.3 $9.5 $0 House passed: $9.5 Senate committee passed: $9.5

Great Lakes Science Center $8.8 $8.8 No detail provided

House passed: No detail Senate committee passed: No detail

Section 106 Water Pollution Control $230.8 $230 $153.7 House passed: $240 Senate committee passed: $223

https://www.glc.org/work/advocacy/federal-priorities




https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/GLC-2019FedPri-OnePg-FINAL.pdf




27

Program FY 2018

Final Appropriations

FY 2019 Final

Appropriations

FY 2020 Budget Request

Congressional Actions to Date on FY 2020 Appropriations

Great Lakes Fishery Commission $33.3 $37.3 $21 House passed: $37.06 Senate committee passed: $40.5

Great Lakes Fishery Ecosystem Rest. No detail provided No detail provided $0 House passed: No detail provided Senate committee passed: No detail

National Sea Grant College Program $65 $68 $0 House passed: $73 Senate committee passed: $75

Coastal Zone Management Grants $75 $75.5 $0 House passed: $81 Senate committee passed: $76.5

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program N/A $10 $25 House passed: $50

Senate committee passed: $73

Port Infrastructure Development Program N/A $293 No detail provided

House passed: $225 Senate committee passed: $93

USFWS Asian carp activities N/A $11 $7.8 House passed: $11.6 Senate committee passed: $25

USGS Asian carp research N/A $7.6 $5.6 House passed: $8.62 Senate committee passed: $9.6

1

** DRAFT – Not for Distribution **

Great Lakes Commission Engagement with Implementation of the 2018 Vessel Incidental Discharge Act

Overview, Roles and Items for Discussion

March 21, 2019

This document outlines major elements of the 2018 Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) legislation, including the Great Lakes‐specific provisions, describes roles for the Great Lakes Commission (GLC), proposes working with a neutral third‐party facilitator, and offers initial items for consideration related to how the GLC will engage on this topic moving forward. This is intended to start framing issues and options for engagement to prepare for discussions among the GLC Board and Commission. Major Elements of VIDA VIDA, which became law in December 2018, directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to set national standards for ballast water and directs the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to implement and enforce the standards. The new standards are to be promulgated by U.S. EPA within two years of passage of the law, and associated USCG regulations must follow within another two years. New regulations must be at least as stringent as current standards in the 2013 Vessel General Permit. VIDA also preempts states from establishing separate discharge standards, although state standards can remain in place until a new federal standard is implemented and enforceable. The legislation recognizes the unique conditions in the Great Lakes and allows any Great Lakes governor to petition for a new standard or other actions, including new equipment or management practices, to address vessel discharges in the Great Lakes. The GLC is charged with assessing and assisting in the development of recommendations regarding any new proposed standards or other actions. The legislation importantly protects existing authorities under the Great Lakes Basin Compact and authorizes $5 million for the GLC to fill its roles. VIDA establishes a new Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program at U.S. EPA, authorized at $50 million annually. Among other purposes, this includes authority to develop and promote type‐approved ballast water management systems for Laker vessels. VIDA establishes and funds a new Coastal Aquatic Invasive Species Mitigation Grant Program, using fines and federal appropriations to help states with inspection, monitoring, and enforcement programs. Numerous provisions call for U.S. EPA or USCG to consult with states, including consultation regarding:

Development of new federal vessel discharge standards (U.S. EPA)

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) emergencies to determine if best management practices are needed and whether water quality standard violations occurred under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (U.S. EPA)

Promulgation of federal requirements related to USCG inspection, monitoring and enforcement procedures and state authority for co‐enforcement of federal requirements (USCG)

Availability to states of Autonomous Information System (AIS) data on inbound vessels (USCG)

Development of a federal and intergovernmental response framework for ANS risks related to vessel discharges (USCG in consultation with U.S. EPA and in coordination with the ANS Task Force)

Governors’ right to petition U.S. EPA or the Coast Guard to issue an emergency order for best management practices or to review a performance standards or regulations (U.S. EPA and USCG)

2

Governors right to petition for enhanced standard or vessel discharge requirements in the Great Lakes (U.S. EPA)

State requests for U.S. EPA to establish no‐discharge zones if they determine waters require additional protection (U.S. EPA)

The establishment of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program (U.S. EPA)

Formation of a working group and a National Ballast Information Clearinghouse for sharing federal commercial vessel reporting and enforcement data

GLC Role The Great Lakes Basin Compact authorizes the GLC to “recommend uniform or other laws, ordinances, or regulations relating to the development, use and conservation of the Basin’s water resources,” including the Commission’s role to recommend “uniformity in navigation regulations” and “measures for combating [water] pollution.” VIDA recommends a specific role for the GLC in assessing and assisting in the development of recommendations regarding any new proposed standards or other actions related to vessel discharges in the Great Lakes. It also calls for consultation with the states in numerous areas. The GLC’s 2019 federal priorities statement recommends that:

“. . . U.S. EPA, in close consultation with the Great Lakes states, should implement the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA), which requires a single, national standard for ballast water and other discharges from commercial vessels. Congress should support the Great Lakes Commission in convening the states, as authorized in VIDA, to assess and recommend consensus‐based actions to protect the unique freshwater of the Great Lakes from the introduction and spread of invasive species, while maintaining a globally competitive maritime economy. U.S. EPA should also establish the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program to monitor for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species in Great Lakes.”

Based on this authority, and the clear need for consensus‐building dialogue, the GLC has both an opportunity and an obligation to lead its member jurisdictions in implementing VIDA in the Great Lakes Basin. While the Great Lakes are clearly an invaluable binational natural resource with unique needs for protection, a strong binational vessel discharge policy that protects the waters and the economy of the United States and Canada can also protect the ecological, cultural and economic health of the Basin. Establishing an appropriate and durable binational policy, however, will require a thoughtful approach. Developing a durable, broadly supported binational vessel discharge policy requires providing opportunity for key participants from a broad range of perspectives to engage in constructive dialogue to identify areas of agreement on performance standards; management technologies and practices; monitoring, inspections and testing; timing, flexibility, and transparent communications; and related innovations. Engaging participants in constructive dialogue to identify areas of shared interest will give the Great Lakes Basin, and the United States and Canada as a whole, the best chance to implement a strong, responsible vessel discharge policy that meets the needs of North America and leads the world in the next generation of economic and environmental stewardship. Providing a neutral forum for constructive dialogue will also build needed trust and reduce the likelihood of future litigation. Third‐Party Neutral GLC staff recommends that the GLC select an acceptable neutral third‐party to assess the aspirations and concerns of key participants related to vessel discharges and elements of VIDA that affect the Great Lakes Basin. The neutral third‐party facilitator will focus on helping develop consensus‐based recommendations on performance standards, testing and compliance requirements; monitoring and communication; research and treatment technologies; and other factors reflecting the unique needs of the Great Lakes Basin, including but not limited to the areas where VIDA requires consultation with the Great Lakes states. The neutral assessment

3

should recommend a process and structure to facilitate ongoing regional dialogue on these and other topics to address future needs and contingencies. The funding authorized in VIDA for the GLC should support this process and should include participation – but not leadership – from U.S. EPA or USCG. The Board should work with a third‐party, neutral facilitator to design a consensus‐based process that will enable key participants within and outside the Great Lakes Basin to identify areas of agreement, disagreement and misunderstanding, and establish agreed‐upon facts and information relating to vessel discharges and maritime commerce. The GLC should task the third‐party neutral to design a constructive consensus‐building process to support EPA’s rulemaking processes and support a comprehensive vessel discharge policy that protects the waters, ecology and economy of the Great Lakes Basin. Time is of the essence to engage interested parties in constructive dialogue before issuing a draft rule. The GLC intends to use authorized funds and other resources to hire a neutral, third‐party convener immediately. The GLC will work with the neutral third party to design an inclusive process and engage a broad range of participants in constructive, forward‐looking discussions designed to outline areas of shared interest, potential areas of disagreement, and policy solutions. This will provide a proactive, rather than reactive, approach that will strengthen the collective voice of the Great Lakes states, reduce the risk of litigation or divergent or divisive approaches, and maximize the protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem while balancing the interests of the commercial navigation community. Following discussion and endorsement from the GLC Board and Commissioners, this approach should form the basis for a formal funding request to Congress. Items for Discussion and Next Steps The following are proposed next steps to develop and confirm a proposed role for the GLC related to implementation of VIDA in the Great Lakes:

Board discussion and agreement on proposal for GLC role, initial funding for neutral assessment, and funding request to Congress;

o Initial funding will be determined by the scope of proposals from third‐party neutrals and will be based on the availability and source of funding;

Selection of an acceptable neutral, third‐party consensus professional;

Third‐party neutral assessment and design for a consensus‐based process to identify areas of agreement, disagreement, missing information and potential for consensus‐based solution;

Identification and initial consultation with key participants, within and outside the Basin;

Formal adoption of proposed GLC role; and

Presentation of proposal and funding request to Congress. Concurrently, GLC staff should begin identifying near‐term funding and capacity needs, options for securing neutral facilitation and technical support. Time Frame In general, pending consultation with an acceptable third‐party neutral, the GLC should begin work immediately and focus on completing early phases of an assessment in time for a status report to the Commission at its October 9‐12, 2019 meeting in Quebec City. That time frame will provide the opportunity for additional dialogue with federal agencies and will encourage consideration prior to any formal federal notice of federal rulemaking. The time frame will also provide Canada’s Parliament and Prime Minister with an opportunity to consider options for engaging in the constructive, binational process before or in coordination with any Canadian federal legislation or agency rulemaking



EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Darren J. Nichols

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR INTERNAL GLC DISCUSSION ONLY Proposed for delivery March 22, 2019 Mr. Dave Ross Assistant Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Ross: The Great Lakes Commission’s Board of Directors greatly appreciated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water’s March 6 presentation on EPA’s approach to implementing the 2018 Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA). Jack Faulk’s comments, along with those of staff from the offices of Senator Debbie Stabenow and Senator Rob Portman, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Coast Guard and Transport Canada, were timely and helpful. VIDA provides specific authorizations and roles for the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Great Lakes governors, and the Great Lakes Commission (GLC). The legislation also protects state and federal authorities under the Great Lakes Basin Compact and authorizes $5 million for the GLC to assist with the development and review of vessel discharge policies appropriate for—and protective of—the Great Lakes Basin. The Basin contains twenty percent of the planet’s and ninety percent of the United States’ surface freshwater. The Basin also supports a $6 trillion economy. While the Great Lakes are clearly a unique binational natural resource with unique management and protection needs, a strong binational vessel discharge policy that protects the waters and the economy of the United States and Canada can also protect the ecological, cultural and economic health of the Basin. Establishing an appropriate binational policy, however, will require a thoughtful approach. Developing a durable, broadly supported binational vessel discharge policy requires providing opportunities for key participants from a broad range of perspectives to engage in constructive dialogue to identify areas of agreement on performance standards; treatment technologies and best management practices; monitoring, inspections and testing; timing, flexibility and transparent communication, and relatedinnovations. Engaging participants in constructive dialogue to identify areas of shared interest will give the Great Lakes Basin, and the United States and Canada as a whole, the best chance to implement a strong, responsible vessel discharge policy that meets the needs of North America and leads the world in the next generation of economic and environmental stewardship. Providing a neutral forum for constructive dialogue will also build needed trust and reduce the likelihood of future litigation. Toward that end, the GLC’s Board intends to work with a third‐party, neutral facilitator to design a consensus‐based process that will enable key participants within and outside the Great Lakes Basin to identify areas of agreement, disagreement and

Ensuring environmental and economic prosperity for the Great

Lakes-St. Lawrence region through communications, policy research and

development, and advocacy.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CHAIR John Linc Stine

Former Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

St. Paul, Minnesota

VICE CHAIR Sharon Jackson

Deputy General Counsel Office of Governor Eric J. Holcomb

Indianapolis, Indiana

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR Jon W. Allan

Former Director Office of the Great Lakes

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Lansing, Michigan

Wayne Rosenthal Director

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Springfield, Illinois

Basil Seggos Commissioner

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Albany, New York

Mary Mertz Director

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Columbus, Ohio

Timothy Bruno

Chief Office of the Great Lakes

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Erie, Pennsylvania

Stephen Galarneau Director

Office of Great Waters Great Lakes & Mississippi River

Environmental Management Division Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources Madison, Wisconsin

William Carr

Senior Manager International Relations Policy

Office of International Relations and Protocol

Toronto, Ontario

Jean-François Hould Québec Government Representative

Chicago, Illinois

misunderstanding, and establish agreed‐upon facts and information to inform implementation of VIDA. We hope that a constructive, consensus‐building process can support EPA’s rulemaking processes and facilitate the development of a comprehensive vessel discharge policy that protects the waters, ecology and economy of the Great Lakes Basin. Time is of the essence to engage interested parties in constructive dialogue before issuing a draft rule. The GLC intends to use authorized funds and other resources to hire a neutral, third‐party convener immediately. The GLC will work with the convenerl to design an inclusive process and engage a broad range of participants in constructive, forward‐looking discussions designed to outline areas of shared interest, potential areas of disagreement, and policy solutions. The GLC warmly welcomes the EPA, USCG, other agencies, states and congressional leaders to join it in supporting a consensus‐seeking process that leads to a single, binational vessel discharge policy that is fully protective of the environment and economy of the Great Lakes Basin. We also respectfully request that EPA lead staff meet with the GLC to ensure that our agencies are coordinating toward the best possible vessel discharge policy. Please let us know when you can be available to meet with the GLC to discuss next steps. Thank you again for your leadership, innovation and partnership as we convene this important, timely effort. Respectfully, _____________________________________________ _________________________________________ John Linc Stine, Chair ‐ Minnesota Sharon Jackson, Vice Chair – Indiana _____________________________________________ _________________________________________ Stephen Galarneau, Commissioner – Wisconsin Jim Tierney, Commissioner – New York _____________________________________________ _________________________________________ Loren Wobig, Commissioner – Illinois Timothy Bruno, Commissioner – Pennsylvania _____________________________________________ _________________________________________ Jon W. Allan, Commissioner – Michigan Mary Mertz, Commissioner – Ohio _____________________________________________ _________________________________________ William Carr, Commissioner – Ontario Jean‐Francois Hould, Commissioner – Quebec Cc: United States Coast Guard Governor Tim Walz, Minnesota

U.S. EPA – Region 5 Governor Tony Evers, Wisconsin Senator Debbie Stabenow Governor J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Senator Rob Portman Governor Eric J. Holcomb, Indiana Great Lakes Fishery Commission (?) Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan International Joint Commission (?) Governor Mike DeWine, Ohio Transport Canada Governor Tom Wolf, Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York Premier Doug Ford, Ontario Premier François Legault, Quebec



EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Darren J. Nichols

September 5, 2019

Valérie Jennings Acting Senior Policy Advisor Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs Marine Safety and Security Transport Canada Place de Ville, Tower C, 10th Floor 330 Sparks Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 RE: Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 153, Number 23: Ballast Water Regulations Dear Ms. Jennings: The Great Lakes Commission (GLC) is pleased to respond to Transport Canada’s proposed Ballast Water Regulations

as published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, Volume 153, Number 23. As a binational compact agency representing

the two Canadian Great Lakes provinces and eight U.S. Great Lakes states, the GLC seeks to enhance environmental

protection from aquatic invasive species while ensuring the economic health of maritime transportation in the Great

Lakes‐St. Lawrence River region. The GLC commends Transport Canada in its efforts toward these mutual goals and

urges it to pursue a structured, collaborative, binational process that establishes compatible regulations throughout

the Great Lakes Basin.

The GLC is mindful that the Great Lakes‐St. Lawrence River Basin contains twenty‐percent of the planet’s, and ninety‐

percent of the United States’, surface freshwater, supports a $6 trillion economy that includes a robust maritime

transportation‐based economy, and provides drinking water for more than 48 million people. With those factors in

mind, the Great Lakes provinces and states believe that a single binational ballast water standard that is protective of

all bodies of water, including the unique needs of the Basin, can be implemented and the GLC is committed to help

achieve that single standard.

The Canadian and U.S. processes for adopting and implementing national standards must be parallel and easily

adaptable to the Great Lakes Basin. This will require a structured dialogue among key participants from a broad range

of perspectives – a more deliberative and comprehensive approach than ordinary rulemaking. The dialogue must be

structured to identify areas of agreement on performance standards and applicability; treatment technologies and

best management practices; monitoring, inspections and compliance requirements; timing, flexibility and transparent

communication; and needed innovations.

Engaging participants in a structured consensus‐building process will give the Great Lakes Basin, and Canada and the

United States as a whole, the best chance to implement a strong, responsible ballast discharge policy that meets the

needs of North America and leads the world in the next generation of economic and environmental stewardship.

Providing a neutral forum for that dialogue will also build needed trust and reduce the likelihood of future litigation.

2

The GLC has hired a neutral, third‐party convener to design an inclusive process to engage a broad range of

participants in constructive, forward‐looking dialogue. The third‐party team will present its early findings and

recommendations to the Commission at its annual meeting in Québec City, QC in October 2019. We hope this

consensus‐building process is intended to support and inform rulemaking efforts and implementation in both Canada

and the United States. The GLC expects that this inclusive process will produce the most comprehensive and current

understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by implementation of ballast water regulations

throughout the Great Lakes‐St. Lawrence River Basin.

Parallel efforts underway by the federal governments in Canada and the United States provide a unique opportunity

to pivot and pursue the comprehensive, binational approach to rulemaking described above. The GLC urges

Transport Canada, and its counterparts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard, to

take advantage of this moment and the GLC’s efforts to build consensus on this important topic.

The GLC looks forward to continuing to engage with Great Lakes provinces, Transport Canada and other agencies,

and stands ready to contribute to a process that will produce a robust and compatible binational regulatory regime

that can be a model for future governance in complex regions like ours.

Thank you again for your work to implement a successful ballast water policy in the Great Lakes Basin and thank you

for this opportunity to provide input into the rulemaking process. Please feel free to contact the Great Lakes

Commission’s executive director Darren Nichols with any questions or to participate in the consensus‐building

process: [email protected] or (734) 396‐6060.

Respectfully,


Reference This section includes:

• Great Lakes Basin Compact • Great Lakes Commission Bylaws • Membership lists

- Commissioners, Associate Commissioners and Alternates

- Observers

- Staff

GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT

(With State & Federal Legislative History)

Reprinted by

Great Lakes Commission 1300 Victors Way, Suite #1350

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108-5203

GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT

The party states solemnly agree:

ARTICLE I The purposes of this compact are, through means of joint or cooperative action: 1. To promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of the water

resources of the Great Lakes Basin (hereinafter called the Basin). 2. To plan for the welfare and development of the water resources of the Basin as a whole as well as for

those portions of the Basin which may have problems of special concern. 3. To make it possible for the states of the Basin and their people to derive the maximum benefit from

utilization of public works, in the form of navigational aids or otherwise, which may exist or which may be constructed from time to time.

4. To advise in securing and maintaining a proper balance among industrial, commercial, agricultural, water

supply, residential, recreational, and other legitimate uses of the water resources of the Basin. 5. To establish and maintain an intergovernmental agency the end that the purposes of this compact may be

accomplished more effectively.

ARTICLE II A. This compact shall enter into force and become effective and binding when it has been enacted by the

legislature of any four of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and thereafter shall enter into force and become effective and binding as to any other of said states when enacted by the legislature thereof.

B. The Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec, or either of them, may become states party to this

compact by taking such action as their laws and the laws of the Government of Canada may prescribe for adherence thereto. For the purposes of this compact the word 'state' shall be construed to include a Province of Canada.

ARTICLE III

The Great Lakes Commission created by Article IV of this compact shall exercise its powers and perform its functions in respect to the Basin which, for the purposes of this compact shall consist of so much of the following as may be within the party states: 1. Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, St. Clair, Superior, and the St. Lawrence River, together with any

and all natural or manmade water interconnections between or among them. 2. All rivers, ponds, lakes, streams, and other watercourses which, in their natural state or in their prevailing

conditions, are tributary to Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, St. Clair, and Superior or any of them or which comprise part of any watershed draining into any of said lakes.

ARTICLE IV

A. There is hereby created an agency of the party states to be known as The Great Lakes Commission (hereinafter called the Commission). In that name the Commission may sue and be sued, acquire, hold and convey real and personal property and any interest therein. The Commission shall have a seal with the words, 'The Great Lakes Commission' and such other design as it may prescribe engraved thereon by which it shall authenticate its proceedings. Transactions involving real or personal property shall conform to the laws of the state in which the property is located, and the Commission may by by-laws provide for the execution and acknowledgment of all instruments in its behalf.

B. The Commission shall be composed of not less than three commissioners nor more than five

commissioners from each party state designated or appointed accordance with the law of the state which they represent and serving and subject to removal in accordance with such law.

C. Each state delegation shall be entitled to three votes in the Commission. The presence of commissioners

from a majority of the party states shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Commission. Actions of the Commission shall be by a majority of the votes cast except that any recommendations made pursuant to Article VI of this compact shall require an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the votes cast from each of a majority of the states present and voting.

D. The commissioners of any two or more party states may meet separately to consider problems of

particular interest to their states but no action taken at any such meeting shall be deemed an action of the Commission unless and until the Commission shall specifically approve the same.

E. In the absence of any commissioner, his vote may be cast by another representative or commissioner of

his state provided that said commissioner or other representative casting said vote shall have a written proxy in proper form as may be required by the Commission.

F. The Commission shall elect annually from among its members a chairman and vice-chairman. The

Commission shall appoint an Executive Director who shall also act as secretary-treasurer, and who shall be bonded in such amount as the Commission may require. The Executive Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission and at such compensation and under such terms and conditions as may be fixed by it. The Executive Director shall be custodian of the records of the Commission with authority to affix the Commission's official seal and to attest to and certify such records or copies thereof.

G. The Executive Director, subject to the approval of the Commission in such cases as its by-laws may

provide, shall appoint and remove or discharge such personnel as may be necessary for the performance of the Commission's function. Subject to the aforesaid approval, the Executive Director may fix their compensation, define their duties, and require bonds of such of them as the Commission may designate.

H. The Executive Director, on behalf of, as trustee for, and with the approval of the Commission, may

borrow, accept, or contract for the services of personnel from any state or government or any subdivision or agency thereof, from any inter-governmental agency, or from any institution, person, firm or corporation; and may accept for any of the Commissions purposes and functions under this compact any and all donations, gifts, and grants of money, equipment, supplies, materials, and services from any state or government of any subdivision or agency thereof or inter-governmental agency or from any institution, person, firm or corporation and may receive and utilize the same.

I. The Commission may establish and maintain one or more offices for the transacting of its business and

for such purposes the Executive Director, on behalf of, as trustee for, and with the approval of the Commission, may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property necessary to the performance of its functions.

J. No tax levied or imposed by any party state or any political subdivision thereof shall be deemed to apply to property, transactions, or income of the Commission.

K. The Commission may adopt, amend and rescind by-laws, rules and regulations for the conduct of its

business. L. The organization meeting of the Commission shall be held within six months from the effective date of

the compact. M. The Commission and its Executive Director shall make available to the party states any information

within its possession and shall always provide free access to its records by duly authorized representatives of such party states.

N. The Commission shall keep a written record of its meetings and proceedings and shall annually make a

report thereof to be submitted to the duly designated official of each party state. O. The Commission shall make and transmit annually to the legislature and Governor of each party state a

report covering the activities of the Commission for the preceding year and embodying such recommendations as may have been adopted by the Commission. The Commission may issue such additional reports as it may deem desirable.

ARTICLE V

A. The members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, but the expenses of each commission shall be met by the state which he represents in accordance with the law of that state. All other expenses incurred by the Commission in the course of exercising the powers conferred upon it by this compact, unless met in some other manner specifically provided by this compact, shall be paid by the Commission out of its own funds.

B. The Commission shall submit to the executive head or designated officer of each party state a budget of

its estimated expenditures for such period as may be required by the laws of that state for presentation to the legislature thereof.

C. Each of the Commission's budgets of estimated expenditures shall contain specific recommendations of

the amount or amounts to be appropriated by each of the party states. Detailed commission budgets shall be recommended by a majority of the votes cast, and the costs shall be allocated equitably among the party states in accordance with their respective interests.

D. The Commission shall not pledge the credit of any party state. The Commission may meet any of its

obligations in whole or in part with funds available to it under Article IV(H) of this compact, provided that the Commission takes specific action setting aside such funds prior to the incurring of any obligations to be met in whole or in part in this manner. Except where the Commission makes use of funds available to it under Article IV(H) hereof, the Commission shall not incur any obligations prior to the allotment of funds by the party states adequate to meet the same.

E. The Commission shall keep accurate accounts of all receipts and disbursements. The receipts and

disbursements of the Commission shall be subject to the audit and accounting procedures established under the by-laws. However, all receipts and disbursements of funds handled by the Commission shall be audited yearly by a qualified public accountant and the report of the audit shall be included in and become a part of the annual report of the Commission.

F. The accounts of the Commission shall be open at any reasonable time for inspection by such agency, representative of the party states as may be duly constituted for that purpose and by others who may be authorized by the Commission.

ARTICLE VI

The Commission shall have power to: A. Collect, correlate, interpret, and report on data relating to the water resources and the use thereof in the

Basin or any portion thereof. B. Recommend methods for the orderly, efficient, and balanced development, use and conservation of the

water resources of the Basin or any portion thereof to the party state and to any other governments or agencies having interests in or jurisdiction over the Basin or any portion thereof.

C. Consider the need for and desirability of public works and improvements relating to the water resources

in the Basin or any portion thereof. D. Consider means of improving navigation and port facilities in the Basin or any other portion thereof. E. Consider means of improving and maintaining the fisheries of the Basin or any portion thereof. F. Recommend policies relating to water resources including the institution and alteration of flood plain and

other zoning laws, ordinances and regulations. G. Recommend uniform or other laws, ordinances, or regulations relating to the development, use and

conservation of the Basin's water resources to the party states or any of them and to other governments, political subdivisions, agencies of inter-governmental bodies having interests or in jurisdiction sufficient to affect conditions in the Basin or any portion thereof.

H. Consider and recommend amendments or agreements supplementary to this compact to the party states

or any of them, and assist in the formulation and drafting of such amendments or supplementary agreements.

I. Prepare and publish reports, bulletins, and publications appropriate to this work and fix reasonable sales

prices therefore. J. With respect to the water resources of the Basin or any portion thereof, recommend agreements between

the governments of the United States and Canada. K. Recommend mutual arrangements expressed by concurrent or reciprocal legislation on the part of

Congress and the Parliament of Canada including but not limited to such agreements and mutual arrangements as are provided for by Article XIII of the Treaty of 1909 Relating to Boundary Waters and Questions Arising Between the United States and Canada. (Treaty Series, No 548).

L. Cooperate with the governments of the United States and of Canada, the party states and any public or

private agencies or bodies having interests in or jurisdiction sufficient to affect the Basin or any portion thereof.

M. At the request of the United States, or in the event that a Province shall be a party state, at the request of

the Government of Canada, assist in the negotiation and formulation of any treaty or other mutual agreement between the United States and Canada with reference to the Basin or any portion thereof.

N. Make any recommendation and do all things necessary and proper to carry out the powers conferred upon the Commission by this compact, provided that no action of the Commission shall have the force of law in, or be binding upon, any party state.

ARTICLE VII

Each party state agrees to consider the action the Commission recommends in respect to: A. Stabilization of lake levels. B. Measures for combating pollution, beach erosion, floods and shore inundation. C. Uniformity in navigation regulations within the constitutional powers of the states. D. Proposed navigation aids and improvements. E. Uniformity or effective coordinating action in fishing laws and regulations and cooperative action to

eradicate destructive and parasitical forces endangering the fisheries, wildlife and other water resources. F. Suitable hydroelectric power developments. G. Cooperative programs for control of soil and bank erosion for the general improvement of the Basin. H. Diversion of waters from and into the Basin. I. Other measures the Commission may recommend to the states pursuant to Article VI of this compact.

ARTICLE VIII This compact shall continue in force and remain upon each party state until renounced by the act of the legislature of such state, in such form and manner as it may choose and as may be valid and effective to repeal a statute of said state, provided that such renunciation shall not become effective until six months after notice of such action shall have been officially communicated in writing to the executive head of the other party states.

ARTICLE IX

It is intended that the provisions of this compact shall be reasonably and liberally construed to effectuate the purposes thereof. The provisions of this compact shall be severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the constitution of any party state or of the United States, or in the case of a Province, to the British North America Act of 1867 as amended, or the applicability thereof to any state, agency, person or circumstances is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any state, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby, provided further that if this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of the United States, or in the case of a Province, to the British North America Act of 1867 as amended, or of any party state, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining states and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters.

STATE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

Illinois: (69th GA House Bill, No. 983, 1955) Indiana: (Chapter 220 (H. 216, Approved March 10, 1955) Michigan: (Act No. 28, Public Acts of 1955, Approved by Governor April 14, 1955) Minnesota: (Laws of Minnesota 1955, Chapter 691; S.F. No. 1982) New York: (Chapter 643, Laws of 1960) Ohio: (Amended House Bill 415, Effective October 9, 1963, 105 General Assembly) Pennsylvania: (Act of Pennsylvania General Assembly, No. 421, 1955-56 Session) Wisconsin: (No. 294 A, Chapter 275, Laws of 1955)

The Commission was officially organized and established December 12, 1955 subsequent to ratification of the compact by five states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin). The Commission office was established on the Campus of the University of Michigan in early 1956. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT - LEGISLATION All interstate compacts require Congressional consent (Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States) in order to achieve full force and effect. Numerous bills were considered beginning in 1956. In 1968, Congress enacted S. 660 (PL 90-419) giving limited consent to the compact as follows:

"Public Law 90-419 90th Congress, S 660

July 24, 1968

"AN ACT

"Granting the consent of Congress to a Great Lakes Basin Compact, and for other purposes. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the consent of Congress is hereby given, to the extent and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, to the Great Lakes Basin Compact which has been entered into by the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the form as follows:

"GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT"

(The full text of the State adopted Compact text is included in PL 90-419 at this point.)

"SEC. 2. The consent herein granted does not extend to paragraph B of article II or to paragraphs J, K, and M or article VI of the compact, or to other provisions of article VI of the compact which purpose to authorize recommendations to, or cooperation with, any foreign or international governments, political subdivisions, agencies or bodies. In carrying out its functions under this Act the Commission shall be solely a consultative and recommendatory agency which will cooperate with the agencies of the United States. It shall furnish to the Congress and to the President, or to any official designated by the President, copies of its reports submitted to the party states pursuant to paragraph O of article IV of the compact. "SEC. 3. Nothing contained in this Act or in the compact consented to hereby shall be construed to affect the jurisdiction on, powers, or prerogatives of any department, agency, or officer of the United States Government or of the Great Lakes Basin Committee established under title II of the Water Resources Planning Act, or of any international commission or agency over or in the Great Lakes Basin or any portion thereof, nor shall anything contained herein be construed to establish an international agency or to limit or affect in any way the exercises of the treatymaking power or any other power or right of the United States. "SEC 4. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly reserved. "Approved July 24, 1968." FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: PL 90-419 (90th Congress, S 660) HOUSE REPORT No 1640 (Comm. on Foreign Affairs) SENATE REPORT No. 1178 (Comm. on the Judiciary) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 114 (1968): June 12: Considered and passed Senate. July 15: Considered and passed House. July 24: Signed by the President.

Page -1-

BYLAWS

Pursuant to the powers and authority vested in the Great Lakes Commission by paragraph K of Article IV of the Great Lakes Basin Compact, the following Bylaws are adopted and shall remain in force until amended.

ARTICLE I COMPONENT STATES

The states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin having ratified the Great Lakes Basin Compact by act of their legislatures are recognized as the component states of this Compact which has become operative in view of the provisions of Article II, section A of this Compact. The provinces of Ontario and Québec, by actions of their governments through a Declaration of Partnership, are recognized as associate (non-voting) members of the Compact.

ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP

SECTION 1 - The members appointed by and certified to the Commission by the component states shall constitute the members of the Commission.

SECTION 2 - Pursuant to the provisions of the Compact, each state shall have a total of three votes on any matters coming before the Commission to be cast in accordance with the applicable laws of such state. Should any Commission or any committee, special committee, or task force member be absent from any Commission or committee, special committee or task force meeting, their vote may be cast by a duly appointed proxy in accordance with Article IV, Section E of the Compact, whose authority shall be in writing and filed with the Chair of the Commission or committee, as the case may be, at the time of or before said meeting.

SECTION 3 - Each state or the Commission itself shall be permitted to make use of advisors and consultants of its own choice at any meeting of the Commission or of any committee, special committee or task force. Such advisors and consultants may be permitted to participate in discussions and deliberations without the power to vote.

SECTION 4 - The Commission shall be permitted to designate observers representing the United States and Canadian federal governments, regional organizations, or any others it may so designate to advance the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Basin Compact. Observers may be permitted to participate in discussions, deliberations and other activities as approved by the Commission, but shall have no vote.

Page -2-

ARTICLE III BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SECTION 1 - There is established a Board of Directors (hereafter referred to as “the Board”) to be composed of a Commissioner from each component state. The governors of each state, where not inconsistent with state law, shall designate the person who shall serve on the Board. The Chairs of the Ontario and Québec delegations to the Commission shall serve in an associate (non-voting) capacity on the Board. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission shall be elected by the Commission from among the state delegation members and, upon election shall also be members of the Board. The Chair of the Commission shall also hold the title of Chairman of the Board.

SECTION 2 - The Board shall evaluate the work, activities, programs and policies of the Commission and shall recommend to the Commission the taking of any action by the Commission relative to such areas. It shall also serve in an advisory capacity to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission and shall perform such other duties and functions as the Commission shall delegate to it or otherwise authorize it to perform from time to time on behalf of the Commission. It shall meet on the call of the Chair.

SECTION 3 - The Board shall adopt budget(s) following review by the full Commission in accordance with Article VII. Pursuant to Section 8, Article VII, the Board shall authorize, by majority vote of members present, the adoption of changes to the general operating budget of the Commission. The Board may authorize increases or decreases of the budget by majority vote of members present. Alterations within previously approved amounts of spending categories, not changing the general operating budget amount, may be adopted by majority approval of the Board members present.

SECTION 4 - The Board shall, from time to time, review the personnel policies of the Commission and receive recommendations from Commissioners and the President/Chief Executive Officer on these personnel policies. The Board may authorize changes to the Commission’s "Personnel Policies and Procedures" and authorize changes in compensation for the President/CEO and staff personnel within available budget amounts. Compensation includes salary and fringe benefits available to staff.

SECTION 5 - The Board shall review proposed policies that are prepared for consideration by the Commission and shall report to the full Commission on the findings of the review and provide recommendations on adoption or suggested changes.

SECTION 6 - The Board shall report on all Board meetings at the next regularly scheduled or special Commission meeting. Draft minutes of Board meetings will be furnished to all Commissioners as soon as possible.

SECTION 7 - Board meetings will be held as needed, including by conference call or in conjunction with full Commission meetings to conserve travel costs to the extent practical for member states. Board meetings shall be open to all Commissioners as observers. All meetings will be announced to the entire membership. Board decisions will be made on the basis of a majority vote of those present.

SECTION 8 - The Board will act on Commission policy and budget matters in accordance with the following guidelines:

Page -3-

a) The Commission at a special or regularly scheduled meeting, refers the issues to the Board for action.All Commissioners may participate in discussions, but only Board members will be entitled to voteon the issue.

b) The Commission is unable to adequately resolve an issue (e.g., additional research, discussion orcoordination is required, in a timely manner not available to the full Commission.) The Board mayreceive a referral from the Commission, or the Chair, and after discussion with the Vice Chair andPresident/CEO, may notify all Commissioners that an issue has been referred to the Board foraction and resolution. Any objections shall be considered by the Chair. Other Commissionersdesiring to participate may do so through the Board member representing their state or province.

c) For issues in which circumstances require an immediate decision or action, the Chair, after discussionwith the Vice Chair and President/CEO, may refer the issue to the Board when a full Commissionmeeting is not an option for resolution. The Chair will report on all action taken by the Board to thefull Commission by regular mail or equivalent as soon as practicable.

SECTION 9 - There is established the position of Immediate Past Chair to be held by the departing Chair for the period of his/her successor’s tenure as Chair. The Immediate Past Chair may be designated, by the Chair in consultation with the Board, to undertake special activities as deemed appropriate.

SECTION 10 - The Chair may designate members of the Board to undertake other special responsibilities as deemed appropriate.

ARTICLE IV OFFICERS

SECTION 1 - Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission shall be made by a nominating committee appointed by the current Chair, and election shall be held at the annual meeting of the Commission. Election to each office shall be by majority vote and each state shall be entitled to three votes. The Chair and Vice-chair shall hold office for one year or until their successors are elected and qualified. In the event the office of Chair becomes vacant, nomination and election to fill the vacancy shall be effected at any meeting of the Commission after due notice to all Commissioners.

SECTION 2 - Chair: The Chair shall take office immediately following adjournment of the meeting at which elected. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and of the Board from such time until a successor shall take office. The Chair shall appoint, or establish the process of appointing, the members of committees, special committees, and task forces. The Chair shall serve as a voting member of the Board.

SECTION 3 - Vice Chair: The Vice Chair shall act for the Chair in the event of the latter’s absence or disability. The Vice Chair shall serve as a voting member of the Board.

SECTION 4 - President/CEO: Subject to the general supervision of the Commission, the President/CEO shall be the full time executive officer of the Commission. The President/CEO shall be employed by the Commission and shall hold office at the pleasure of the Commission; and shall:

(a) Carry out its policies;(b) Serve as editor of any Commission publication;(c) Coordinate the activities of all committees, special committees and task forces;(d) Arrange details and facilities, including secretarial and other services for all Commission and

Committee meetings;(e) Serve as ex-officio member without vote for all committees, special committees and task forces;

Page -4-

(f) Cause to be made a record of the proceedings of the Commission and Board and preserve the samein the headquarters office;

(g) Give notice of all meetings;(h) Make recommendations on programs, policies, and activities of the Commission;(i) Exercise general supervision under the direction of the Commission of all the Commission programs

and activities;(j) Have immediate charge of the headquarters office and personnel.

SECTION 5 - Executive Staff: The executive staff of the Commission shall consist of President/CEO and such other staff members as may be designated by a majority vote of the Board from time to time.

ARTICLE V COMMITTEES

SECTION 1 - The Commission may, from time to time and as deemed necessary, delineate committees, special committees, and task forces to carry out its initiatives. Each committee, special committee, or task force shall consist of persons from each interested state and province, nominated by the Chair of the delegation and appointed by the Chair. Each state shall be entitled to one vote on each committee, special committee and task force. In addition, the Chair of each committee, special committee or task force may arrange for associates or advisors, without payment of compensation or expenses to the same unless authorized by the Commission, to assist the committee, special committee or task force and participate in its deliberations and discussions without power to vote on recommendations.

SECTION 2 - The committees, special committees, and task forces shall conduct studies and research, prepare memoranda and reports in their assigned fields and on that basis make recommendations to the full Commission for specific action to be taken in a particular field. Any and all action on legislative recommendations of a committee, special committee or task force other than discussion, study and voting will be made only with the approval of the Commission.

SECTION 3 - Each committee, special committee or task force shall meet as needed to conduct assigned duties. Through its Chair, or the Chair’s designee, each committee, special committee or task force shall periodically submit a written report to the Commission at regular annual meetings of the Commission or at other times as deemed appropriate. Recommendations by the committees, special committees and task forces calling for action by the Commission shall be received in writing by the Chair of the Commission and the President/CEO at least one month prior to the date of the meeting of the Commission at which such action is to be sought, unless special permission is granted by the Commission Chair for a late report.

ARTICLE VI MEETINGS

SECTION 1 - Annual and semiannual meetings: The Commission shall meet at least twice annually. The annual meeting normally shall be held during the month of October; the semi-annual meeting normally shall be held during the second half of the fiscal year (January – June). The Chair shall consider recommendations and invitations of Commissioners in selecting meeting locations, and views on conditions which tend to over-ride the normally established meeting dates.

SECTION 2 - Notice: The President/CEO shall mail notice in writing of the time and place of each regular meeting of the Commission to each member not later than 60 days prior to the date of the meeting.

Page -5-

SECTION 3 - Special meetings: Special meetings of the full Commission may be called by the Chair to be held at times and places identified in an official call for such meetings.

SECTION 4 - Order of business and rules: The order of business which may be developed by Bylaws, tradition or ruling of the presiding officer of the Commission or Board may be changed at any meeting of the body proposing a change in its order of business by vote of a majority of members present, except as otherwise provided by the Compact or the Bylaws. The usual applicable parliamentary rules and precedents will govern all proceedings.

ARTICLE VII BUDGET AND FINANCE

SECTION 1 - All component states shall share equally in the expenses of the Commission. Each individual state shall bear the expenses of its Commissioners at Commission annual, semiannual and Board meetings. and such expenses shall not be paid out of funds in the Commission treasury.

SECTION 2 - In the case of committee, special committee or task force programs the Commission may authorize the payment of expenses of committee, special committee or task force members from Commission funds.

SECTION 3 - Financial remittances to the Commission by each member state shall be requested for each fiscal year. The amount of each remittance shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with Sections 1, 6, 7 and 8, this Article and Article V of the Compact.

SECTION 4 - The President/CEO shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit to the Board a statement presenting the Commission’s financial condition.

SECTION 5 - With the approval of the Board, the President/CEO may make transfers of funds within the approved budget of the Commission.

SECTION 6 - The budget of estimated expenditures referred to in Article V of the Compact shall be adopted by the Board prior to the relevant fiscal year, and presented at the next meeting of the Commission.

SECTION 7 - The budget of the Commission shall consist of two parts:

a) The "general operating budget" shall include, but not be limited to funds remitted by each memberstate, Commission reserve funds and interest earned. Expenditures will normally include routineoperating costs for the Commission.

b) The "restricted fund budget" shall include income from projects, grants and other sources notconsidered as a routine revenue. Expenditures will normally be made to fund costs of the projects orgrants incurred by the Commission. Transfers to pay Commission operating expenses may be madein accordance with grant or project authorization.

Page -6-

SECTION 8 a) The President/CEO shall prepare a proposed annual budget for review and evaluation by the Board

at least 45 days prior to the new fiscal year. The proposal shall include estimated income andexpenditures for each part of the budget.

b) The Board will make necessary changes to the proposal, will distribute a draft budget to the fullCommission for review, and following consultation with the full Commission will adopt a finalbudget document. The general operating budget component shall be used to determine the financialremittance required by each member state. Only a majority vote by the full Commission shallauthorize a change in a member state’s required financial remittances.

SECTION 9 - Certain changes and alterations are expected to occur within the approved budget. These will be handled as follows:

a) Changes in the general operating budget, not requiring a change in required member stateremittances, may be made by majority vote of the Board or by a majority vote of the fullCommission.

b) Changes in the restricted fund budget, not amending the general operating budget, may be adoptedby a majority vote of the full Board or by a majority vote of the full Commission.

c) Changes in the budget, requiring alterations in the required member state remittance will only beauthorized by majority vote of the full Commission.

d) Changes in the budget requiring immediate action, where a Board or full Commission meeting is notpossible, may be made by the President/CEO in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair, asavailable. A subsequent report to, and ratification by, the Board or Commission, as appropriate, willbe sought.

ARTICLE VIII AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS

These Bylaws may be altered and amended at any regular meeting upon the affirmative majority vote of the Commission. However, no amendment may be considered at any such meeting unless the proposed amendment shall have been received by the Chair and President/CEO at least one month prior to the first day of the month of which said regular meeting shall be held. Immediately upon receipt of such proposed amendment the President/CEO shall refer it to the Board and shall send a copy thereof to each member of the Commission within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, together with notice of the date on which the proposed amendment will be acted upon by the Commission.

Bylaws as approved December 3, 1962; amended July 23, 1965; December 14, 1966; June 14, 1968; November 20, 1968; June 9, 1970; October 6, 1971; June 19, 1973; May 28, 1982; October 7, 1983; March 13, 1986; March 5, 1993; October 15, 2002 and October 7, 2008.

-1-

1300 Victors Way Suite 1350

Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Ph: 734-971-9135

September 20, 2019 Board of Directors

John Linc Stine, Chair, Minnesota Sharon Jackson, Vice Chair, Indiana

John W. Allan, Immediate Past Chair, Michigan

Loren Wobig, Illinois Mary Mertz, Ohio Sharon Jackson, Indiana Bill Carr, Ontario James Clift, Michigan Timothy J. Bruno, Pennsylvania John Linc Stine, Minnesota Martine Hébert, Québec Basil Seggos, New York Noah Roberts, Wisconsin ILLINOIS Commissioners *Loren Wobig Director Office of Water Resources, IL. Dept. of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702 Ph: (217) 782-9130 [email protected] Josina Morita 5340 Main Street Skokie, IL 60077 Ph : (312) 751-5080 [email protected] Stephanie Comer Comer Family Foundation 939 W. North Avenue, Suite 850 Chicago, IL 60642 Ph: (312) 274-0546 x 1203 [email protected] (2 Vacancies)

INDIANA Commissioners *Sharon Jackson Deputy General Counsel Office of the Governor of Indiana 200 W. Washington Street, Room 206 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Ph: (317) 232-4564 [email protected] Jody W. Peacock Vice President Ports of Indiana 150 W. Market St., Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2845 Ph: (317) 233-6225 [email protected] Bruno Pigott Commissioner IN Dept. of Environmental Management Office of Water Quality 100 N. Senate Ave., IGCN 1255 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Ph: (317) 233-2550 [email protected] Steven A. Fisher Executive Director American Great Lakes Ports Association 700 12th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Ph: (202) 625-2102 Fax: (202) 625-2104 [email protected]

Kay L. Nelson Director of Environmental Affairs Northwest Indiana Forum 6100 Southport Road Portage, IN 46368 Ph: (219) 763-6303 Fax: (219) 763-2653 [email protected] Alternate Commissioners Chris Smith Deputy Director, Regulatory Team IN Dept. of Natural Resources 402 West Washington St., Room W256 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Ph: (317) 232-1557 [email protected] John Davis Deputy Director, Land Management Team IN Dept. of Natural Resources 402 W. Washington St., Room W256 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Ph: (317) 232-4025 [email protected] MICHIGAN Commissioners *James Clift Deputy Director MI Dept. of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy 525 W. Allegan St. Lansing, MI 48893 Ph: (517) 284-6715 [email protected]

-2-

Hon. Candice Miller Commissioner Macomb County Public Works 21777 Dunham Road Clinton Township, MI 48036 Ph: (586) 469-6101 [email protected] Hon. Dana Nessel Attorney General G. Mennen Williams Building 525 W. Ottawa Street P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 Ph: 517-335-7622 Fax: 517-335-7644 [email protected] Hon. Rick Snyder 201 S. Main Street, 10th Floor Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Ph: (517) 755-7570 [email protected] Marc E. Smith Director of Conservation Partnerships National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Regional Center 213 W. Liberty Street, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Ph: (734) 769-3351 [email protected] Alternate Commissioners Kara Cook Office of the Governor Environment and Energy Policy 111 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 Ph: (517) 898.3963 [email protected] Jennifer K. McKay Policy Director Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council 426 Bay Street Petoskey, MI 49770 Ph: (231) 347-1181 Fax: (231) 347-5928 [email protected] Stanley Pruss Special Assistant Attorney General 525 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, MI 49033 Ph: (517) 930-4426 [email protected] S. Peter Manning 525 W. Ottawa Street P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 Ph: (517) 373-7540 Fax: (517) 373-1610 [email protected]

MINNESOTA Commissioners * John Linc Stine, Commissioner, Retired Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1398 Myrtle St. N Maplewood, MN 55119 Ph: (651) 468-7075 [email protected] Hon. Carrie Ruud State Senator State Office Bldg., Room 25 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155-1206 Ph: (651) 296-4913 [email protected] Hon. Ann Rest State Senator Senate Office Bldg., Room 105 St. Paul, MN 55155-1209 Ph: (651) 296-2889 [email protected] Hon. Paul Torkelson State Representative 381 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Ph: (651) 296-9303 [email protected] Hon. Jennifer Schultz State Representative 215 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Ph: (651) 296-2228 [email protected] NEW YORK Commissioners *Basil Seggos Commissioner NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233–1010 Ph: (518) 402–8540 Fax: (518) 402–8541 James M. Tierney Deputy Commissioner for Water Resources NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1010 Ph: (518) 402-2794 Fax: (518) 402-9016 [email protected]

Donald E. Zelazny Great Lakes Programs Coordinator NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 270 Michigan Ave. Buffalo, NY 14203-7134 Ph: (716) 851-7070 Fax: (716) 851-7226 [email protected] (2 Vacancies) Alternate Commissioners Sean Mahar Chief of Staff NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 615 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 [email protected] Eileen Murphy Director of Federal Affairs Executive Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1050 Ph: (518) 402-2797 Fax: (518) 402-9016 [email protected] OHIO Commissioners *Mary Mertz Director Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 2045 Morse Rd., D-3 Columbus, OH 43229 Ph: (614) 265-1005 [email protected] Laurie A. Stevenson Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 Columbus, Ohio 43215-1049 Ph: (614) 644-2782 [email protected] Hon. John Eklund State Senator Ohio Senate Room 128 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Ph: (614) 644-7718 [email protected] James H. I. Weakley, President Lake Carriers' Association 25651 Detroit Road, Suite 102 Westlake, Ohio 44145 Ph: (440) 333-9994 Fax: (440) 333-9993 [email protected]

-3-

Haraz N. Ghanbari Ohio State Representative 77 S. High Street, 13th flr. Columbus, OH 43215 Ph: (614) 466-8104 [email protected] Alternate Commissioners Mindy Bankey Assistant Director Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 2045 Morse Rd., D-3 Columbus, OH 43229 Ph: (614) 265-6876 [email protected] John D. Baker President - Great Lakes District Council International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO 103 Erieside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Ph: (216) 781-7816 Fax: (216) 781-7818 [email protected] Thomas Rayburn Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Lake Carriers Association 25651 Detroit Road ,Suite 102 Westlake, OH 44145 Ph: (440) 333-9994 Fax: (440) 333-9993 [email protected] ONTARIO Associate Commissioners *Bill Carr Senior Manager International Relations Policy Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, Cabinet Office 1075 Bay Street, Room 830 Toronto, ONT M5S 2B1 Ph: (416) 318-5846 [email protected] Bruce Bateman Assistant Deputy Minister Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 14th Floor Toronto, ONT M4V 1P5 Ph: (613) 530-0948 [email protected]

Craig Brown Assistant Deputy Minister Policy Division Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry Whitney Block, Room 6540 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto, ONT M7A 1W3 Ph: (46) 314-6131 [email protected] John Lieou Assistant Deputy Minister Policy and Planning Division Ministry of Transportation 777 Bay Street, 30th Floor Toronto, ONT M7A 2J8 Ph: (416) 585-7944 [email protected] Debra Sikora Assistant Deputy Minister Food Safety and Environment Division Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 1 Stone Road West, 5th Floor Guelph, ONT N1G 4Y2 Ph: (519) 826-4301 [email protected] Alternate Associate Commissioners Ranissah Samah Team Leader, International Relations Policy Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs The Cabinet Office 1075 Bay Street, Suite 830 Toronto, ONT M5S 2B1 Ph: (647) 242-9477 [email protected] Ling Mark Director Great Lakes and Inland Waters Branch Lake and Water Division Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 40 St. Clair Avenue West – 10th Floor Toronto, ONT M4V 1M2 Ph: (416) 314-7020 [email protected] Ala Boyd Director (Acting), Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry 300 Water St., 2nd Floor, South Peterborough, ONT K9J 3C7 Ph: (705) 755-1241 [email protected]

Tasneem Essaji Director, Transportation Policy Branch Policy and Planning Division Ministry of Transportation 777 Bay St., 30th Floor Toronto, ONT M7A 2J8 Ph: (416) 585-7116 [email protected] Collen Fitzgerald-Hubble Director Environmental Management Branch Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 1 Stone Road West Guelph, ONT N1G 4Y2 Ph: (519) 826-4975 [email protected] PENNSYLVANIA Commissioners *Timothy J. Bruno Chief, Office of the Great Lakes Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Compacts and Commissions Office Tom Ridge Environmental Center 301 Peninsula Drive, Suite 4 Erie, PA 16505 Ph: (814) 835-1477 Fax: (814) 833-0266 [email protected] Brenda Sandberg Executive Director Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority 1 Holland Street Erie, PA 16507 Ph: (814) 455-7557 Fax: (814) 455-8070 [email protected] Hon. Patrick J. Harkins State Representative 460 E. 26th Street Erie, PA 16504 Ph: (814) 459-1949 Fax: (814) 871-4854 [email protected] Alternate Commissioners Hon. Kathy Dahlkemper Erie County Courthouse 140 West Sixth Street, Suite 104 Erie, PA 16501 Ph: (814) 451-6388 [email protected]

-4-

Aneca Y. Atkinson Acting Deputy Secretary for Water Programs Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Ph: (717) 787-6490 [email protected] QUÉBEC Associate Commissioners *Martine Hébert Québec Government Representative in Chicago Government of Québec 444 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 3650 Chicago, IL 60611 Ph: (312) 471-1126 x 59711 [email protected] Julie Bissonnette Director, Office of the Deputy Minister Ministry of Sustainable Development, The Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change Édifice Marie-Guyart, 30ème étage 675, boulevard René-Lévesque Est bte 86 Québec, QC G1R 5V7 Ph: (418) 521-3861 Fax: (418) 646-5883 [email protected] Julie Grignon Sous-ministre associée aux Forêts, à a Faune et aux Parcs Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 880, chemin Sainte-Foy, Suite RC-120 Québec, QC G1S 4X4 Ph: (418) 627-8658 Fax: (418) 644-9727 [email protected] Marc Gagnon, Director Government Affairs Fednav Limited 1000, rue de la Gauchetière Ouest Suite 3500 Montréal, QC H3B 4W5 Ph: (514) 878-6470 Fax: (514) 878-7670 [email protected]

Alternate Associate Commissioners Sébastien Marcoux Service du transport maritime Ministère des Transport, Mobilité et Électrification des transports 700, boul. René-Lévesque Est 24e étage Québec QC G1R 5H1 Ph: (418) 644-2908, ext. 2266 Fax: (418) 646-6196 Sebastien.marcoux @transports.gouv.qc.ca Denis Simard Directeur général par intérim Directeur général du transport maritime et ferroviaire Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l’Électrification des transports 700, boul. René-Lévesque Est, 24e étage Québec (Québec) G1R 5H1 Ph: (418) 644-2908 x 22255 [email protected] Jérôme Faivre Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change 675 René-Lévesque Boulevard, East 5th étage Box 33 Québec, QC G1R DV7 Ph: (418)-521-3828x4135 Fax : (418) 643-0001 [email protected] Yvon Boilard Service de la gestion des habitats aquatiques et de la production piscicole Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 880, chemin Sainte-Foy, 2nd étage Québec, QC G1S 4X4 Ph: (418) 627-8694x7487 Fax: (418) 646-6863 [email protected] Frederic Lecomte Scientific Counselor Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks 880 Ch. Ste-Foy Quebec, QC G1S 4X4 Ph: 418-627-8694 #7121 [email protected]

WISCONSIN Commissioners *Noah Roberts Policy Analyst State Capitol Office of the Governor 15 East Madison, WI 53703 Ph: (608) 843-9706 [email protected] Todd Ambs Division Administrator Water Programs Management Department of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster St. AD 5 P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53702 Ph: (608) 264-9210 [email protected] Dean Haen Director Port of Green Bay 2561 S. Broadway St Green Bay, WI 54304 Ph: (920) 492-4950 [email protected] Alternate Commissioner Stephen G. Galarneau Director Office of Great Waters Great Lakes & Mississippi River Environmental Management Division WI Dept. of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster St. Madison, WI 53707-7921 Ph: (608) 266-1956 [email protected] GLC Executive Director Darren J. Nichols Executive Director 1300 Victors Way, Suite 1350 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Ph: (734) 971-9135 [email protected] * denotes State/Province Delegation Chair

OBSERVERS

May 23, 2019

1300 Victors Way Suite 1350

Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Ph: 734-971-9135 Fax: 734-971-9150

U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Edwin Martinez-Martinez Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Coordinator 1400 Independence Ave., SW #5214-S Washington, DC 20250 Ph: (202) 205-7703 [email protected] Alternates Terry Cosby, State Conservationist 200 North High Street, Room 52 Columbus, OH 43215 Ph: (614) 255-2472 [email protected] Garry Lee, State Conservationist 3001 Coolidge Road, Ste. 250 East Lansing, MI. 48823-6350 Ph : (517) 324-5277 [email protected] U.S. DEPT OF COMMERCE NOAA/GLERL Deborah Lee, Director Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4840 South State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48108-9719 Ph: (734) 741-2244 [email protected] NOAA/OCRM Jeffrey L. Payne, Director Office for Coastal Management 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413 Ph: (843) 740-1207 [email protected] SEA GRANT Dr. John A. Downing, Director Minnesota Sea Grant: 141 Chester Park 31 W. College Street Duluth, MN 55812 Ph: 218/726.8715 [email protected] U.S. DEPT OF DEFENSE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Carl Platz, Great Lakes Program Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 629 Grand Haven, MI 49417 Phone: (616) 842-5510 x 25521 [email protected]

U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY John Krummel, Director Environmental Science Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 240 Argonne, IL 60439-4847 Ph: (630) 252-3269 [email protected] U.S. DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Coast Guard RADM Donna L. Cottrell Ninth District Commander (D9) 1240 East Ninth St., Room 2081 Cleveland, OH 44199-2060 Ph: (216) 902-6001 [email protected] Alternate Lorne W. Thomas Government Affairs Officer Ninth Coast Guard District 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199-2060 Ph: (216) 902-6022 [email protected] U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Craig A. Czarnecki Assistant Regional Director Science Applications Midwest Region 2651 Coolidge Rd., Suite 101 East Lansing, MI 48823 Ph: (517) 351-8470 [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey Russell M. Strach, Center Director Great Lakes Science Center 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ph: (734) 214-7200 [email protected] Alternate Jon Hortness, PE USGS Great Lakes Program Coordinator 77 W. Jackson Blvd Mail Stop G-9J Chicago, IL 60604 Ph: 312-886-4043 Ph: 815-530-3274 (Cell) [email protected] National Park Service (VACANT)

U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Suite W32-300 Washington, DC 20590 Ph: (202) 366-0091 [email protected] Maritime Administration Chad Dorsey, Acting Director Great Lakes Gateway Office Maritime Administration P.O. Box 1156 Chicago, IL 60690 United States Phone: 270-408-4828 Alt: 202-997-6205 [email protected] U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Chris Korleski, Director Great Lakes National Program Office 77 W. Jackson Blvd. – G17J Chicago, IL 60604 Ph: (312) 353-8320 [email protected] CANADIAN GOVERNMENT (FEDERAL) Felicia Minotti, Senior Policy Officer Global Affairs Canada U.S. Transboundary Affairs Division 125 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1A 0G2 Tel: (343) 203-3527 Email: [email protected] GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION Bob Lambe, Executive Secretary 2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 209 Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1563 Ph: (734) 669-3209 [email protected]

2

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION David Burden, Director Great Lakes Regional Office 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Flr Windsor, ONT N9A 6T3 Ph: (519) 257-6715 [email protected] (U.S. mailing address) P.O. Box 32869 Detroit, MI 48232 Ph: (313) 226-2170 GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE GOVERNORS AND PREMIERS David Naftzger, Executive Director 20 North Wacker Dr., Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Ph: (312) 407-0177 [email protected] COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION Bradley Watson, Acting Executive Director Hall of the States, Suite 322 444 North Capitol St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Ph: (202) 508- 3844 [email protected] ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES Joel Brammeier, President and CEO 150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 700 Chicago, Il 60601 Ph: (312) 445-9727 [email protected] DUCKS UNLIMITED David Brakhage Director of Operations Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office 7322 Newman Blvd., Building 1 Dexter, MI 48130 Ph: (734) 623-2000 [email protected] GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER Nick Schroeck, Attorney 4444 2nd Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 Ph (313) 820-7797 [email protected] GREAT LAKES OBSERVING SYSTEM Kelli Paige, Executive Director 4840 S. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Ph: (734) 332-6101 [email protected]

JOHN G. SHEDD AQUARIUM Andrea Densham John G. Shedd Aquarium 1200 S. Lake Shore Drive Chicago, IL 60605 Ph: (312) 692-3235 [email protected] CHIPPEWA/OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY Mike Ripley. Environmental Coordinator Albert LeBlanc Bldg. 179 W. Three Mile Rd. Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 Ph: (906) 632-0072 [email protected] HELSINKI COMMISSION Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary Katajanokanlaituri 6 B FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland Ph: +358 207 412 649 Fax: +358 207 412 645 [email protected] www.helcom.fi THE NATURE CONSERVANCY Helen Taylor State Director 101 E. César E. Chávez Avenue Lansing, MI 48906 Ph: (517) 316-2261 Fax: (517) 316-9886 [email protected] NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mike Shriberg, Director 213 W. Liberty #200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Ph: (734) 887-7100 [email protected] GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE Betty Sutton President & CEO 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Ph: (312) 201-4518 [email protected] SIERRA CLUB GREAT LAKES PROGRAM Christy McGillivray Great Lake State Organizer Michigan Chapter 109 E. César Chávez Avenue Lansing, MI 48906 Cell: (808) 726-5325 [email protected]

GREEN MARINE David Bolduc Executive Director 25, rue du Marché-Champlain #402 Québec. QC G1L4H2 Ph: (418) 649-6004 Fax: (418)476-1906 [email protected]



GREAT LAKES COMMISSION 1300 Victors Way, Suite #1350

Ann Arbor, MI 48108-5203 734-971-9135 www.glc.org

STAFF

Darren J. Nichols, Executive Director

Directors Thomas R. Crane, Deputy Director

Matt Doss, Policy Director Victoria Pebbles, Program Director

Program Staff

David Betcher, GIS Program Specialist Eric Brown, Senior Advisor for External Relations

Patrick Caniff, Program Specialist Margo Davis, Project Manager

Eric Ellis, Project Manager Jill Estrada, Program Specialist

Siyu Fan, GIS Developer Elaine Ferrier, Senior Program Specialist

Evan Fischer, GIS Technician Ken Gibbons, Program Specialist

Daniel Gold, Senior Program Specialist Meng Hu, GIS Data Analyst

Erika Jensen, Program Manager Samantha Tank, Program Specialist

Ceci Weibert, Senior Program Specialist Edwin (Ned) Willig, Program Specialist

Nicole Zacharda, Program Manager

Operations and Administration Laura Andrews, Design Manager

Joe Bertram, Financial Operations Manager Pat Gable, Administrative Assistant

Laura Kaminski, Grants and Contracts Manager Reilly Manz, Acting Communications Coordinator

Don Leflouria Jr., Help Desk Specialist Beth Wanamaker, Communications Manager

Contractors/Project Team Staff

David L. Knight, Great Lakes Dredging Team, Great Lakes Daily News and Special Projects

2019 Great Lakes Commission Annual Meeting...2019/10/04 · Darren Nichols, Executive Director 9:45 a.m. Break Pause Grande Place, Hilton Québec 2019 GREAT LAKES COMMISSION ANNUAL

Documents